UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`TERADATA OPERATIONS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC d/b/a IXO
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case: UNASSIGNED
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,161,506
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End
`System
`
`

`

`I.
`II.
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`V.
`VI.
`VII.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
`MANDATORY NOTICES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................... 3
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................ 3
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 3
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................. 4
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ............................... 5
`The ’506 Patent ..................................................................................... 5
`III.
`Identification of the challenge and summary of the prior art rendering
`IV.
`the claims unpatentable .............................................................................................. 7
`A.
`Identification of the Challenge .............................................................. 7
`B.
`Franaszek Teaches Nearly All Aspects of the Challenged Claims ....... 8
`C.
`Hsu Teaches A Data Compression System that Examines Data Within
`the Block Itself To Select An Encoder .................................................. 9
`Sebastian Teaches a Data Compression System with a Single Data
`Compression Encoder ......................................................................... 10
`petitioner has standing to bring this proceeding ................................. 11
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b), 42.104(b)(3) ...... 11
`DETAILED EXPLANATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ......... 12
`The Grounds for Trial Are Based on Prior Art Patents and Printed
`Publications ......................................................................................... 12
`1.
`The Effective Filing Date of the Claimed Subject Matter Is No
`Earlier Than October 29, 2001 .................................................. 13
`Franaszek is a Prior Art Patent.................................................. 13
`2.
`Hsu is a Prior Art Printed Publication ...................................... 14
`3.
`Sebastian is a Prior Art Patent .................................................. 15
`4.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 15
`Ground 1: Claims 104 and 105 Would Have Been Obvious Under §
`103(a) Over Franaszek in View of Hsu, or in the Alternative,
`Franaszek in View of Hsu and Sebastian ............................................ 15
`
`D.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`1.
`
`Claim 104 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in View
`of Hsu or, in the Alternative, Franaszek in View of Hsu and
`Sebastian ................................................................................... 17
`a. Claim 104, Preamble: “A computer implemented method for
`compressing data” ........................................................................................ 17
`b. Claim 104: “analyzing data within a data block of an input data stream
`to identify one or more data types of the data block, the input data stream
`comprising a plurality of disparate data types” ........................................... 18
`c. Claim 104: “performing content dependent data compression with a
`content dependent data compression encoder if a data type of the data block
`is identified” ................................................................................................. 21
`i.
`Content Dependent Data Compression Encoder ...................... 21
`ii.
`Performing Content Dependent Data Compression with a
`Content Dependent Data Compression Encoder if a Data Type of the
`Data Block is Identified ........................................................................... 25
`d. Claim 104: “performing data compression with a single data
`compression encoder, if a data type of the data block is not identified” ..... 26
`e. Claim 104: “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” ........................................................................................................... 33
`i.
`Teachings of the Prior Art ......................................................... 33
`i.
`Reasons a POSITA Would Have Found it Obvious to Analyze
`Something Other Than “Solely” a Descriptor ......................................... 35
`2.
`Claim 105 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in View
`of Hsu or, in the Alternative, Franaszek in View of Hsu and
`Sebastian ................................................................................... 38
`a. Claim 105, Preamble: “A computer implemented method” ............... 38
`b. Claim 105: “receiving a data block in an uncompressed form, said
`data block being included in a data stream” ................................................ 39
`c. Claim 105: “analyzing data within the data block to determine a type
`of said data block” ....................................................................................... 40
`d. Claim 105: “compressing said data block to provide a compressed
`data block” ................................................................................................... 40
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`e. Claim 105: “wherein if one or more encoders are associated to said
`type, compressing said data block with at least one of said one or more
`encoders, otherwise compressing said data block with a default data
`compression encoder, and” .......................................................................... 41
`f.
`Claim 105: “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.” .......................................................................................................... 46
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ...................................... 46
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 46
`
`VIII.
`IX.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Abstract
`
`Office Action
`
`Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination
`Certificate
`
`Reexamination Certificate
`
`’506 Patent
`
`Abst.
`
`OA
`
`NIRC
`
`Cert.
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`EX. NO.
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION
`
`1001
`
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles Creusere
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Charles Creusere
`U.S. Patent No. 5,870,036 to Franaszek et al.
`(“Franaszek”)
`W.H. Hsu, et al., Automatic Synthesis of Compression
`Techniques for Heterogeneous Files, Software Practice
`& Experience, Vol. 25, No. 10 pp. 1097-1116 (Oct.
`1995) (“Hsu”)
`Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate dated
`Nov. 27, 2013, U.S. Inter Partes Reexamination Control
`No. 95/001,926
`Office Action dated Dec. 15, 2009 in U.S. Inter Partes
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,479
`Appeal Brief dated Apr. 21, 2011 in U.S. Inter Partes
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,479
`MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND
`TECHNICAL TERMS, Fifth Ed. (1993) (excerpts)
`MICROSOFT PRESS COMPUTER DICTIONARY, Third Ed.
`(1997) (excerpts)
`Reply to Office Action in Inter Partes Reexamination in
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,479 (Mar. 15, 2010)
`Action Closing Prosecution in Inter Partes
`Reexamination in Reexamination Control No.
`95/000,479 (Aug. 27, 2010)
`Jury Verdict Form in Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO v. T-
`Mobile U.S.A., Inc., No. 6:10-cv-493, Dkt. 660 (E.D.
`Tex. Feb. 11, 2013)
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`EX. NO.
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION
`Jury Instructions in Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO v. T-
`Mobile U.S.A., Inc., No. 6:10-cv-493, Dkt. 659 (E.D.
`Tex. Feb. 11, 2013)
`Trial Transcript Vol. 5 from Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a
`IXO v. T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc., No. 6:10-cv-493(E.D. Tex.
`Feb. 8, 2013)
`Order Granting in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment
`as a Matter of Law as to Invalidity, Realtime Data, LLC
`d/b/a IXO v. T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc., No. 6:10-cv-49, Dkt.
`662 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2013)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 (“the ’728 patent”)
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Realtime Data, LLC
`d/b/a IXO v. Packeteer, Inc., No. 6:08-cv-144, Dkt. 371
`(E.D. Tex. Jun. 22, 2009)
`Final Judgment, Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO v. T-
`Mobile U.S.A., Inc., No. 6:10-cv-493, Dkt. 664 (E.D.
`Tex. Mar. 28, 2013)
`Decision on Appeal in Blue Coat Systems, Inc. v.
`Realtime Data LLC, Appeal 2012-002371,
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,479
`(Reserved)
`(Reserved)
`Amendment in U.S. Patent Application No. 10/668,768
`(Aug. 25, 2004)
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,378,992
`(IPR2016-00373) (instituted on Jun. 27, 2016)
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,513
`(IPR2016-00374) (instituted on Jun. 27, 2016)
`Declaration of Mr. Scott Bennett and Attachments 1a-h
`William Underwood, Extensions of the UNIX File
`Command and Magic File for File Type Identification,
`iii
`
`

`

`EX. NO.
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`1031
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION
`Technical Report ITTL/CSITD 09-02, Georgia Tech
`Research Institute (Sept. 2009).
`AT&T UNIX® PC UNIX System V User’s Manual,
`Volume 1 (1986)
`File(1): FreeBSD General Commands Manual (Dec. 8,
`2000)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,253,264 to Sebastian (“Sebastian”)
`Realtime Data, LLC (dba IXO) v. Morgan Stanley et al.,
`Case No. 2013-1092 (Fed. Cir., Jan. 27, 2014)
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Teradata Operations, Inc. (“Petitioner”) petitions for Inter Partes Review
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R., Part 42 of claims 104 and 105 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,161,506. As shown herein, Petitioner is reasonably likely to prove
`
`these challenged claims are unpatentable. Accordingly, Petitioner requests that the
`
`Board institute trial and cancel all challenged claims.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’506 patent is part of an extensive patent family having members that
`
`have seen cancellations of scores of
`
`their claims
`
`through
`
`inter partes
`
`reexamination, invalidity rulings by judges and juries. See Exs. 1015, 1016, and
`
`1018-1020. Certain related patents are also involved in pending inter partes
`
`review proceedings. See, e.g., Exs. 1024-1025. Like many of the other claims
`
`challenged by those Patent Owner has accused of infringement, the challenged
`
`claims of the ’506 patent are likewise unpatentable because they merely recite
`
`obvious variants of prior art systems.
`
`Each of the challenged claims recite a method that determines whether to
`
`compress a data block using an encoder, where the choice of the encoder depends
`
`on whether some data type of the data block is identified or whether an encoder is
`
`associated with some data type of the data block. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 15:66-16:9,
`
`16:29-42, 25:19-38. The claimed embodiments rely on two types of encoders used
`
`in the alternative: (1) a “content dependent data compression encoder[],” and (2) a
`
`1
`
`

`

`“single data compression encoder” or a “default data compression encoder.” Id.,
`
`(Cert.) 2:34-64. Which encoder is used for a particular data block depends on
`
`whether the data type within that data block are identified. If the data type is
`
`identified then a content dependent encoder is used; if not, then the default or
`
`single data compression encoder is used. Id., 15:66-16:9, 16:38-42, 18:13-21.
`
`According to the challenged claims, the identification of the data type of the data
`
`block “excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor that is indicative of the data
`
`type of the data within the data block.” Id., (Cert.) 2:34-64 (emphasis added).1
`
`The examiner concluded that this feature—injected into the ’506 patent during
`
`inter partes reexamination—was absent from the prior art. See Ex. 1006, 3 (NIRC
`
`in 95/001,926). But this feature was in fact present in the prior art.
`
`First, U.S. Patent No. 5,807,036 to Franaszek describes a data encoding
`
`system and method that examines a data type field in a data block to determine if a
`
`data type is specified and; if so, the system selects an appropriate encoder from a
`
`“Compression Method List” associated with the data type of the data block. See
`
`Ex. 1004, 5:49-54; 6:1-50. If not, a single default encoder is selected from a list of
`
`available default encoders. Id. Franaszek was not alone in its disclosure of a
`
`content-dependent and a single encoder used when an encoder specifically tailored
`
`to the data type is not available. For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,253,264 to
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, emphasis has been added to quotations in this Petition.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Sebastian describes a single “generic” compressor and accompanying method
`
`“which achieves performance similar to other non-specific data compression
`
`systems” when the data type is not paired to a “format-specific compression”
`
`algorithm. See Ex. 1030, 1:50-60.
`
`The very feature that the examiner found to be missing from the prior art—
`
`looking at something other than “solely” a descriptor to identify a data type of the
`
`data block—is found in a publication authored by Hsu, et al. and published in a
`
`widely-circulated technical journal in 1995. Hsu explains that (1) the data type of
`
`a data block is identified by examining “not only the first 512 bytes of a data set,
`
`but also 512 bytes in the middle of the set and the 512 bytes at the end (if they
`
`exist).” Ex. 1005, 1104. Hsu’s system also calculates three “redundancy metrics”
`
`that characterize data redundancy within each data block. See Ex. 1005, 1104-06.
`
`Using the data type and largest redundancy metric, Hsu choses the best encoder for
`
`the data block. Thus, the key aspect of the challenged ’506 patent claims that led
`
`to their allowance was known to those skilled in the art.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Teradata Operations, Inc. is the real-party-in-interest for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`Patent Owner is asserting the ’506 patent against Petitioner in the United
`
`3
`
`

`

`States District Court for the Central District of California in civil action 2:16-cv-
`
`02743-AG-FFM. Patent Owner is also asserting the ’506 Patent in the United
`
`States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in the following civil actions:
`
`6:16-cv-01037, 6:16-cv-01035, 6:16-cv-00961, 6:16-cv-00086, 6:16-cv-00087,
`
`6:16-cv-00088, 6:16-cv-00089. The ’506 Patent is also subject of a Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review IPR 2017-00176 filed by other parties. Petitioner understands
`
`that two pending applications (i.e., 14/727,309 and 14/936,312) claim the benefit
`
`of an earlier filing date through the application that led to the ’506 patent. The
`
`’506 patent claims the benefit of the filing date of earlier-filed applications that
`
`issued as patents. One of these patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,643,513, is involved in
`
`IPR2016-00374, IPR2016-00978, and IPR2017-00366. That patent includes
`
`claims similar to those at issue in this proceeding. Moreover, another patent
`
`related to the ’506 patent—the ’728 patent—is the subject of a previously filed
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR2017-00179 and IPR2017-00108) as well as
`
`another Petition for Inter Partes Review concurrently filed by Petitioner.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Lead Counsel and Request for Authorization: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a), Petitioner designates the following: Lead Counsel is
`
`Eliot D. Williams (Reg. #50,822) of Baker Botts L.L.P.; Jamie R. Lynn (Reg.
`
`#63,666), Andrew Wilson (Reg. #74,093), and Michelle J. Eber (Reg. #67,338), all
`
`4
`
`

`

`of Baker Botts L.L.P. A Power of Attorney is filed concurrently herewith under 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.10(b).
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`D.
`Petitioner consents to service by email on the following email addresses:
`
`DLTeradata@bakerbotts.com;
`
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com;
`
`michelle.eber@bakerbotts.com;
`
`andrew.wilson@bakerbotts.com; and
`
`jamie.lynn@bakerbotts.com.
`
`III. THE ’506 PATENT
`A system and method of the ’506 patent compresses data “using a
`
`combination of content dependent data compression and content independent data
`
`compression.” Ex. 1001, 15:66-16:2. The “content independent data compression
`
`is applied to a data block when the content of the data block cannot be identified or
`
`is not associable with a specific data compression algorithm.” Id., 16:6-16:9.
`
`Figures 13A-13B show examples of a data compression system that includes both
`
`“content
`
`independent data compression” and “content dependent data
`
`compression.” Id., 16:2-16:9.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIGS. 13A-13B. A “content dependent data recognition module 1300
`
`analyzes the incoming data stream to recognize data types, data structures, data
`
`block formats, file substructures, file types, and/or any other parameters that may
`
`indicative of either the data type/content of a given data block or the appropriate
`
`data compression algorithm or algorithms . . . to be applied.” Id., 16:29-35. “Each
`
`data block that is recognized by the content data compression module 1300 is
`
`routed to a content dependent encoder module 1320, if not the data is routed to the
`
`content independent encoder module 30.” Id., 16:38-42.
`
`The content dependent encoder module “comprises a set of encoders D1,
`
`D2, D3 . . . Dm,” each of which includes then-known encoding techniques. Id.,
`
`16:34-44. “[T]he encoding techniques are selected based upon their ability to
`
`effectively encode different types of input data.” Id., 16:44-46.
`
`The “content independent encoder module 30” includes “a set of encoders
`
`6
`
`

`

`E1, E2, E3 . . . En, and may include . . . [encoding] techniques currently well
`
`known within the art . . . .” Id., 16:58-63. The encoding techniques are selected to
`
`“effectively encode different types of input data” and so that they “provide a broad
`
`coverage of existing and future data types.” Id., 16:66-17:3. “Since a multitude of
`
`data types may be present within a given input data block,” the ’506 patent
`
`explains that “by processing the input data blocks with a plurality of encoding
`
`techniques and comparing the compression results, content free data compression
`
`is advantageously achieved.” Id., 20:43-49. Thus, “if the data type is not
`
`recognized the default content independent lossless compression is applied.” Id.,
`
`20:51-52.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHALLENGE AND SUMMARY OF
`THE PRIOR ART RENDERING THE CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`A.
`Claims 104 and 105 of the ’506 patent should be canceled in view of the
`
`Identification of the Challenge
`
`following prior art references: (1) U.S. Patent No. 5,870,036 to Franaszek
`
`(“Franaszek”) (Ex. 1004); (2) W.H. Hsu, et al., Automatic Synthesis of
`
`Compression Techniques
`
`for Heterogeneous Files, Software Practice &
`
`Experience, Vol. 25, No. 10 pp. 1097-1116 (Oct. 1995) (“Hsu”) (Ex. 1005); and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,253,264 to Sebastian (“Sebastian”) (Ex. 1030). All of these
`
`references are prior art under pre-AIA § 102.
`
`Petitioner presents the following ground for trial:
`
`7
`
`

`

` Ground 1: Claims 104 and 105 would have been obvious under §
`
`103(a) over Franaszek in view of Hsu, or in the alternative, over
`
`Franaszek in view of Hsu and Sebastian.
`
`Franaszek Teaches Nearly All Aspects of the Challenged Claims
`
`B.
`Franaszek’s method compresses data blocks by first determining whether the
`
`data type for a block is known; if it is, Franaszek’s method includes applying an
`
`encoder tailored to the data type of the data block, and if it is not, Franaszek’s
`
`method includes applying a default encoder to encode the data block. Ex. 1004,
`
`5:49-54, 6:1-11; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 57-61. Regardless of whether Franaszek’s method
`
`recognizes the data block type, representative samples of each block are tested to
`
`select an optimal encoder for the block. Ex. 1004, 5:19-44; 6:7-50. “[I]f a data
`
`type is available,” id., 6:1-6, Franaszek’s method includes applying different
`
`encoder algorithms tailored to the data type to identify the optimal encoder based
`
`on which compressed sample is the smallest, id., 5:26-29, and compresses the data
`
`block based on the “best method,” id., 5:33-38. In the event that the data type is
`
`unavailable, Franaszek resorts to (a) sampling data from the block, Ex. 1004, 6:11-
`
`32, (b) compressing the sample using the compression methods found in “a default
`
`list of compression methods,” Ex. 1004, 5:53-54, (c) saving the “compressed
`
`sample length K . . . as an entry CRTT(I) in a compression ratio test table . . . ,” id.,
`
`6:22-29, (d) comparing “the smallest compressed length [in the compression ratio
`
`8
`
`

`

`test table, e.g., entry CRTT(Q)] . . . against a threshold,” id., 6:34-35, and (e) “if . .
`
`. CRTT(Q) is sufficiently small,” compressing the block “B” using method “M”
`
`(and possibly dictionary “D”) to give compressed block “B’”, id., 6:45-50.
`
`While Franaszek identifies the type of data from a “type field 205,” Ex.
`
`1004, 6:1-2, that was not the only known way to identify information about data
`
`blocks in compression systems.
`
`C. Hsu Teaches A Data Compression System that Examines Data
`Within the Block Itself To Select An Encoder
`
`Hsu’s method compresses “heterogeneous files”—files
`
`that contain
`
`“multiple types of data such as text, images, binary, audio, or animation.” Ex.
`
`1005, p.1097. 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.” Id., p.1102. Hsu analyzes
`
`data within each block to determine a data type of the block and to choose an
`
`appropriate encoder for compressing that block. Id., p.1097; see also id., p.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 . . . .”).
`
`Hsu describes two phases: a pre-compression phase and a compression
`
`phase. Ex. 1005, p.1102. During the pre-compression phase the data type and
`
`compressibility of each data block is determined and an appropriate encoder is
`
`selected based on that determination. Id. To determine the data type of the data in
`
`9
`
`

`

`the block, Hsu uses a procedure called “new-file,” which analyzes the first, middle,
`
`and last 512 bytes of data in the block and compares patterns in the data samples to
`
`a collection of known data patterns. See id., p.1104; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 65-66. The
`
`“new-file” procedure is based on the UNIX “file” procedure—available as part of
`
`UNIX since 1973—which employs a series of tests to try to classify a file. See Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 65 (discussing Exs. 1027, 1028, and 1029 related to the “new-file”
`
`command). Each known pattern is associated with a classification of data and thus
`
`the “most applicable” data type may be selected based on the comparison of the
`
`samples to the known patterns. Ex. 1005, pp.1103-04; Ex. 1002, ¶ 66. By
`
`analyzing the middle and last 512 bytes of a data block (in addition to the first 512
`
`bytes), the system provides a “better indication” of the “data type” of the data
`
`within the block by “taking into account the possibility that the properties may
`
`change” somewhere within the data block. See Ex. 1005, p.1104; Ex. 1002, ¶ 66.
`
`D.
`
`Sebastian Teaches a Data Compression System with a Single Data
`Compression Encoder
`
`Sebastian’s preferred compression methods use an architecture called a
`
`“Base-Filter-Resource” (BFR) system, which integrates the advantages of data
`
`type-specific compression into a “general-purpose compression tool” for many
`
`data types. See Ex. 1030, 1:45-50 (referring to data “type” as a data “format”).
`
`Sebastian’s system includes different “filters” (encoders) that each support a
`
`specific “data format” (data type), such as for Excel XLS worksheets or Word
`
`10
`
`

`

`DOC files. Id., 1:50-51. If an installed filter “matches the format of the data to be
`
`encoded, the advantages of format-specific compression can be realized for that
`
`data.” Id., 1:55-57. If an installed filter does not match the format of data to be
`
`encoded, a single “generic” filter is used which “achieves performance similar to
`
`other non-specific data compression systems ….” Id., 1:58-60; see also id., 4:9-23.
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER HAS STANDING TO BRING THIS PROCEEDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that (1) the ’506 patent is available for IPR, (2) the
`
`Petitioner is not the Patent Owner, and (3) and it is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting this IPR. The ’506 patent was first asserted against Petitioner in a
`
`complaint filed on April 21, 2016
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(B),
`42.104(B)(3)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.100(b), a claim of an unexpired patent is given its
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016). For the purposes of this proceeding,
`
`Petitioner submits that no term needs construction. As such, all terms should be
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation read in light of the ’506 patent, as
`
`would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`“data stream” (claims 104 and 105)
`
`A.
`Independent claim 104 recites “analyzing data within a data block of an
`
`input data stream” and independent claim 105 recites “receiving a data block in an
`
`11
`
`

`

`uncompressed form, said data block being included in a data stream.” Ex. 1001,
`
`US 7,161,506 C2 at 2:36-37; 2:51-52 (emphasis added). The phrase “data stream”
`
`should be given its broadest reasonable interpretation of “one or more data blocks”
`
`since that meaning aligns with the written description of the ’506 patent. See Ex.
`
`1001, at 8:11-12; 9:62-63; 11:9-10; 13:14-15; 18:22-23; 21:13-14; 24:9-10 (each
`
`instance reciting “A data stream comprising one or more data blocks is input into
`
`the data compression system[.]”). Nevertheless, on appeal of a different case by
`
`Realtime, the U.S. Circuit Court for the Federal Circuit has previously upheld a
`
`construction of the term “data stream” as “one or more blocks transmitted in
`
`sequence from an external source whose characteristics are not controlled by the
`
`data encoder or decoder.” Ex. 1031, at 21-23 (relying on statements made by
`
`Realtime’s expert during an earlier reexamination of the ‘506 Patent). This
`
`definition of “data stream,” which was arrived at by applying a narrower claim
`
`construction standard than the broadest reasonable interpretation to be applied in
`
`this proceeding, is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “data stream” as
`
`“one or more data blocks.”
`
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`A. The Grounds for Trial Are Based on Prior Art Patents and
`Printed Publications
`
`12
`
`

`

`1.
`
`The Effective Filing Date of the Claimed Subject Matter Is No
`Earlier Than October 29, 2001
`
`The earliest effective filing date of the subject matter of the challenged
`
`claims is October 29, 2001, the filing date of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`10/016,355. See Ex. 1001, p.1. As the Office already concluded, the ’355
`
`application added new matter directed to the combination of a “content
`
`independent” and a “content dependent” data encoder, including new figures 13-
`
`18. See Ex. 1007, p.2 (indicating that certain claims, similar to those at issue in
`
`this proceeding “are supported for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 112 by Figures 13-18 and
`
`the additional disclosure that first appeared in application number 10/016,355”).
`
`During that reexamination, the Patent Owner relied on the new descriptive matter
`
`to argue that the claim term “analyzing” required recognition “from the data itself,
`
`the associated data type.” Ex. 1008, p.20-22.
`
`2.
`
`Franaszek is a Prior Art Patent
`
`Based on the earliest effective filing date of October 29, 2001, Franaszek is
`
`prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) since it issued as a
`
`patent on February 9, 1999, more than one year before the effective filing date of
`
`the challenged claims. See Ex. 1004 (cover). Even if Patent Owner could establish
`
`an earlier effective filing date, the earliest possible date it could even attempt to
`
`claim entitlement to is December 11, 1998. See Ex. 1001, p.1 (Related U.S.
`
`Application Data); id., 1:8-15. Even then, however, Franaszek was filed as an
`
`13
`
`

`

`application in the United States on February 24, 1995, making it prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e). See Ex. 1004, p.1.
`
`3.
`
`Hsu is a Prior Art Printed Publication
`
`Hsu was published in a periodical called Software Practice & Experience in
`
`October 1995. As established by the declaration of Dr. Bennett, a skilled
`
`researcher, professor, and librarian, Ex. 1026, ¶¶ 2-6, Hsu was publicly accessible
`
`in numerous places such that a person skilled in the art could obtain a copy of Hsu
`
`before the § 102(b) bar date, id., ¶ 9. Not only do 598 libraries hold a copy of Hsu,
`
`id. ¶ 23 (demonstrating that it was not some well-kept secret), but it was stamped
`
`received by the DePaul University Library on October 25, 1995, indicating that a
`
`copy of the article had been “mailed to the DePaul University Library and to other
`
`subscribers . . . sometime in October 1995,” id., ¶¶ 27-28 & Attachment 1c. The
`
`University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library also regularly received copies
`
`of Software Practice & Experience and stamped them when received. Id., ¶ 30.
`
`The volume including Hsu was stamped received in “October,” but the remainder
`
`of the date is illegible. Id. & Attachment 1f. Each of these dates corroborate Hsu’s
`
`public availability before the § 102(b) bar date. The bound volume includes a
`
`sticker indicating that the various issues were bound in February 1996, id., ¶ 31 &
`
`Attachment 1f. Similar evidence of accessibility was found at the University of
`
`Minnesota Library, see Ex. 1026, ¶ 32 & Attachment 1g, and another copy of Hsu
`
`14
`
`

`

`bearing a date stamp of November 3, 1995 was found in the Illinois Institute of
`
`Technology Library, id. ¶ 33 & Attachment 1h. Thus, Hsu was publicly available
`
`to those skilled in the art by no later than mid-November 1995. Id., ¶ 35. Based
`
`on this publication date, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b).
`
`4.
`
`Sebastian is a Prior Art Patent
`
`Sebastian was filed in the United States on March 6, 1998 and issued as a
`
`patent on June 26, 2001. See Ex. 1030 at cover. Sebastian is thus prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (e).
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`B.
`When the ’506 patent was filed, a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`relevant to the ’506 patent would have had an undergraduate degree in computer
`
`science, computer engineering, electrical and computer engineering, electrical
`
`engineering, or electronics and two years of experience working with data
`
`compression or a graduate degree focusing in the field of data compression.
`
`Individuals with additional education or additional industrial experience could still
`
`be of ordinary skill in the art if that additional aspect compensates for a deficit in
`
`one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above. See Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 25-27.
`
`In this Petition, reference to a person having ordinary skill in the art or “POSITA”
`
`refers to a person with these qualifications.
`
`C. Ground 1: Claims 104 and 105 Would Have Been Obvious Under
`§ 103(a) Over Franaszek in View of Hsu, or in the Alternative,
`
`15
`
`

`

`Franaszek in View of Hsu and Sebastian
`
`As shown below, both Franaszek and Hsu disclose methods for compressing
`
`data blocks in data streams with various types of data in the blocks.