UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`DELL INC.; EMC CORPORATION; HEWLETT-PACKARD ENTERPRISE
`CO.; HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC; TERADATA OPERATIONS, INC.;
`and VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC d/b/a IXO,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-008061
`Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`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 Review Processing System
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-00176 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`DELL INC.; EMC CORPORATION; HEWLETT-PACKARD ENTERPRISE
`CO.; HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC; TERADATA OPERATIONS, INC.;
`and VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC d/b/a IXO,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-008061
`Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`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 Review Processing System
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-00176 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................... 1
`
`CLAIMS 104 AND 105 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS. ....................... 3
`
`A. Patent Owner’s Expert Agrees There Would Have Been
`Advantages to Using Hsu’s Teachings to Improve Franaszek. .............. 3
`
`B. Any Remaining Dispute Is Over How Franaszek’s And Hsu’s
`Teachings Would Have Been Combined. .............................................. 3
`
`C. The Board Should Reject Patent Owner’s Position That the
`Combination of Franaszek and Hsu Would Always Determine a
`Data Type................................................................................................ 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner Makes An Improper Bodily Incorporation
`Argument. ..................................................................................... 5
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments About What a POSA Would
`Have Done Is Based On Misinterpretation of Testimony
`and Misunderstanding Of the Facts. ............................................. 6
`
`a. Dr. Creusere Never Testified That Hsu Would Always
`Be Used To Determine a Data Type. ...................................... 6
`
`b. Dr. Zeger’s Cross-Examination Testimony Reveals
`Good Reasons Why a POSA Would Not Have Used
`Hsu When Franaszek Lacked a Data Type Descriptor. .......... 8
`
`c. Patent Owner’s Theory Rests On The Unstated And
`Legally-Unsupported Assumption That A POSA
`Would Have Only Seen One Obvious Way To
`Combine Prior Art Teachings. .............................................. 11
`
`d. The Challenge Presented In The Petition Does Not
`Turn On Whether Hsu “Always Identifies a Data Type.”
` ............................................................................................... 12
`
`D. Patent Owner’s Criticisms Of The Combination of Franaszek
`and Sebastian Are Not Well-Founded. ................................................. 14
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Reliance On Sebastian Is Not Needed To Support A
`Conclusion of Obviousness Because The Instituted
`Combination Of Franaszek, Hsu, And Sebastian
`Encompasses Franaszek And Hsu. ............................................. 14
`
`Petitioners Have Provided “Actual Evidence” In Support
`Of Their Positions In The Form Of Declarations And
`Documents. ................................................................................. 16
`
`Dr. Zeger’s Opinions About The Combination With
`Sebastian Ignore The Facts And Are Conclusory. ..................... 17
`
`A Problem Can Exist In The Prior Art Even If Franaszek
`Is Silent About That Problem. .................................................... 18
`
`Sebastian Does Not Say What Patent Owner Infers From
`Its Text. Nor Does It Make Practical Sense To Interpret
`Sebastian As Patent Owner Does. .............................................. 19
`
`6. Whether The Data Type Is “Available” To Sebastian’s
`System Is Irrelevant. ................................................................... 20
`
`III. PATENT OWNER HAS ADMITTED THE INVALIDITY OF
`CLAIMS 104 AND 105 UNDER THE PROPER LEGAL TEST
`RELATING TO CONDITIONAL METHOD CLAIMS. ............................. 21
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Application of Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300 (CCPA 1976) .............................................. 15
`
`CRFD Res., Inc. v. Dish Network Corp.,
`No. 2016-2198, Slip op. (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2017) .............................................. 14
`
`Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat’l Arbitration Forum, Inc.,
`243 Fed. App’x 603 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 24, 2007) ..................................................... 22
`
`Graham v. John Deere,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .......................................................................................... 10, 11
`
`In re Keller,
`642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) .................................................................................. 5
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 11, 13
`
`Mobotix Corp. v. E-Watch, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00334, Paper 18 (PTAB Jan. 10, 2014) .............................................. 15
`
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 11
`
`Ex parte Schulhauser,
`2016 WL 6277792, No. 2013-007847 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) ..................... 21, 22
`
`In re Schweikert,
`676 F. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................... 17, 18
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.65(a). ............................................................................................. 7, 17
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`
`Meaning
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`Ex parte reexamination certificate
`
`Institution Decision
`
`Petition
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`
`’506 Pat.
`
`cert.
`
`Inst. Dec.
`
`Pet.
`
`POR
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`EX. NO.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION
`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. 95/001,926
`Appeal Brief dated Oct. 1, 2012 in U.S. Inter Partes
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,926
`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.
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`EX. NO.
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION
`Tex. Feb. 11, 2013)
`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)
`Decision to Institute Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,378,992 (IPR2016-00373), Paper No. 7 (Jun. 27,
`2016)
`Decision to Institute Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,643,513 (IPR2016-00374) Paper No. 7 (Jun. 27,
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`EX. NO.
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION
`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,
`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)
`Decision to Institute Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,643,513 (IPR2016-00978) Paper No. 24 (Nov. 1,
`2016).
`Realtime Data, LLC (dba IXO) v. Morgan Stanley et al.,
`Case No. 2013-1092 (Fed. Cir., Jan. 27, 2014)
`Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger, Ph.D. In Support of
`Patent Owner’s Response in IPR2017-00179 (U.S.
`Patent No. 9,054,728)
`Deposition of Kenneth A. Zeger, Ph.D. (Apr. 10, 2017)
`(taken in IPR2016-00972) (excerpts)
`CRFD Research, Inc. v. Dish Network Corp., No. 16-
`2198 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2017) (precedential slip opinion)
`Deposition of Kenneth A. Zeger, Ph.D. (Nov. 2, 2017)
`and errata sheet (taken in IPR2017-00176, -179, -806, -
`808).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Franaszek and Hsu disclose all aspects of the challenged claims. This is
`
`uncontested. Patent Owner’s expert admitted in a declaration submitted in another
`
`proceeding concerning a related patent that a POSA would have seen an advantage
`
`in combining teachings of Franaszek and Hsu. That advantage is mirrored in the
`
`Petitionin this proceeding. The only real dispute is whether a POSA would have
`
`arrived at the claimed subject matter.
`
`Patent Owner’s position—that if a POSA were to have combined Franaszek
`
`and Hsu, the POSA would have produced a system that always used content-
`
`dependent compression because some data type would be identified for each
`
`block—is flawed. First, as exemplified by Patent Owner’s diagram showing how a
`
`POSA might “combine Hsu into Franaszek’s Fig. 4A,” POR, 5-6 (emphasis added),
`
`Patent Owner is arguing about what may happen if Hsu’s methods were bodily
`
`incorporated into Franaszek’s preferred embodiment. But obviousness is not an
`
`inquiry about whether (or how) one reference may be bodily incorporated into the
`
`structure of another reference.
`
`Second, Patent Owner misinterprets Dr. Creusere as saying a POSA “would
`
`always” follow a particular path when he merely said a POSA “could” do so.
`
`Third, the evidence shows that a POSA would not have used Hsu to incorrectly
`
`characterize unknown data types when the data type was not recognized by the
`
`
`
`
`
`system as reflected in the absence of Franaszek’s type descriptor. Dr. Zeger’s
`
`testimony to the contrary lacks any support in facts or data, and defies good sense.
`
`Fourth, Patent Owner’s theory about how a POSA would have combined
`
`Franaszek and Hsu is based on the flawed legal premise that a POSA would only
`
`see one obvious way to combine prior art teachings.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner incorrectly criticizes Petitioner’s position about the
`
`combination with Sebastian. As a threshold matter, Patent Owner does not dispute
`
`that Franaszek discloses the single default encoder—and Petitioners cited
`
`Sebastian as an alternative disclosure of that limitation. The Board may evaluate
`
`the combination of Franaszek and Hsu and find obviousness because that
`
`combination is encompassed by the instituted Franaszek, Hsu, and Sebastian
`
`ground. In any event, Patent Owner’s arguments about Sebastian are incorrect and
`
`contrary to the realities that a POSA would have recognized using only routine
`
`skill.
`
`But even if the Board sides with Patent Owner in its view of the facts, claims
`
`104 and 105 are still invalid. These are method claims written in conditional
`
`format. Only one branch of the recited condition needs to be satisfied to prove
`
`invalidity. Patent Owner argues that Hsu will always identify a data type and is
`
`used for every data block, resulting in the use of content-dependent data
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`compression for every data block. Under the PTAB’s precedent, this is sufficient
`
`to show that these method claims are invalid.
`
`Based on the evidence presented in the Petition, admissions by Patent Owner,
`
`and exposed during Dr. Zeger’s cross-examination, claims 104 and 105 should be
`
`cancelled as unpatentable under §103.
`
`II. CLAIMS 104 AND 105 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS.
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Expert Agrees There Would Have Been
`Advantages to Using Hsu’s Teachings to Improve Franaszek.
`
`Patent Owner does not contest the Petition’s showing that Franaszek and
`
`Hsu disclose all steps recited in the challenged claims. And, Patent Owner’s expert
`
`Dr. Zeger agreed in IPR proceedings on the related ’728 patent that a POSA would
`
`have seen advantages to combining Hsu and Franaszek. See Ex. 1032, ¶24 (“I also
`
`agree with Dr. Creusere’s testimony that using Hsu [when Franaszek has a data
`
`type descriptor] would help Franaszek ‘pick a better compression technique and
`
`get more compression.’”); Pet., 33-36.
`
`B. Any Remaining Dispute Is Over How Franaszek’s And Hsu’s
`Teachings Would Have Been Combined.
`
`Instead of contesting the teachings of the prior art or whether there were
`
`reasons to combine Franaszek’s and Hsu’s teachings, Patent Owner argues that the
`
`result of any combination of Franaszek and Hsu would not meet the limitations of
`
`claims 104 and 105. Patent Owner’s logic is: (1) when combined with Franaszek,
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Hsu will always be used to attempt to determine a data type of every data block,
`
`POR, 4-6, (2) when Hsu analyzes the data type of the block, Hsu will always
`
`produce one of the ten data types disclosed by Hsu, POR, 7-11, and (3) because
`
`Hsu will always be used and will always identify one of its ten disclosed data
`
`types, “limitation 104[c] cannot be met,” POR, 11-12.
`
`With respect to claim 105, Patent Owner also contends that Petitioner’s
`
`proposed combination of Franaszek, Hsu, and Sebastian does not show
`
`unpatentability because Sebastian only addresses situations in which an encoder is
`
`“installed” or not, and the combined teachings of the references would lead a
`
`POSA to conclude that there are always encoders associated with known data
`
`types.
`
`There are a number of legal and factual problems with Patent Owner’s
`
`argument. As we show below, the prima facie case of obviousness set forth in the
`
`Petition is only further bolstered by the fully-developed record.
`
`C. The Board Should Reject Patent Owner’s Position That the
`Combination of Franaszek and Hsu Would Always Determine a
`Data Type.
`
`Patent Owner’s contention that the Petition fails to establish obviousness
`
`because a POSA would have combined Franaszek and Hsu in a way that would
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`prevent the “single” or “default” compression steps in claims 104 and 105 from
`
`ever being performed suffers from several problems.
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner Makes An Improper Bodily Incorporation
`Argument.
`
`Patent Owner’s real quibble is about what it believes would happen if Hsu
`
`were physically substituted into Franaszek to produce a system (even though the
`
`challenged claims are method claims). This is clear through Patent Owner’s
`
`repeated use of phrases like “combined system,” POR, 1, the “ensuing system,”
`
`POR, 12, “ensuing combination system,” POR, 13, and “incorporat[ing] the data
`
`type analysis approach of Hsu,” POR, 13. It is further cemented by Patent
`
`Owner’s depiction of how a POSA might “combine Hsu into Franaszek’s Figure
`
`4A,” POR, 5-6 (emphasis added) (showing incorporation of Hsu into a process
`
`disclosed in Franaszek). The relevant question, however, is what the teachings of
`
`the references would have suggested to a POSA, not whether one reference may be
`
`bodily incorporated into the structure of another. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
`
`(CCPA 1981). Seen for what it really is, Patent Owner’s argument about what
`
`would happen when Hsu is placed into Franaszek should be rejected as a matter of
`
`law.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments About What a POSA Would
`Have Done Is Based On Misinterpretation of Testimony and
`Misunderstanding Of the Facts.
`Patent Owner’s conclusion that a prima facie case of obviousness has not
`
`been made out is predicated on the view that Dr. Creusere testified that, in the
`
`asserted combination, Hsu would always be used to determine a data type. Patent
`
`Owner is mistaken.
`
`a.
`
`Dr. Creusere Never Testified That Hsu Would Always
`Be Used To Determine a Data Type.
`
`Dr. Creusere testified that in instances in which Franaszek’s optional data
`
`type was missing, “you could then apply Hsu to finding data type . . . .” Ex. 2003,
`
`131:13-132:15 (emphasis added). Both Patent Owner and its expert conclude that
`
`when Dr. Creusere said that one “could” use Hsu to determine a data type even if
`
`Franaszek lacked a data type, Dr. Creusere meant a person of ordinary skill “would
`
`always” determine some data type with Hsu. POR, 4 (“[A] POSA combining
`
`Franaszek with Hsu would always use Hsu to identify a data type and three
`
`redundancy metrics for each of Franaszek’s data blocks.” (emphasis original)). Dr.
`
`Zeger parrots the Patent Owner Response. See Ex. 2004, ¶22. Both Dr. Zeger and
`
`Patent Owner present a graphical depiction of how they contend Franaszek and
`
`Hsu would look when Hsu is bodily incorporated into Franaszek’s Figure 4A. See
`
`id., ¶24; POR, 6.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`“Could” does not mean “would always.” Yet, Dr. Creusere’s testimony is
`
`the only evidence Patent Owner cites to support its argument beyond Dr. Zeger’s
`
`opinion the latter of which, which relies exclusively on the same flawed
`
`interpretation of Dr. Creusere’s testimony. See POR, 4-6; Ex. 1035, 59:14-24 (“Q:
`
`Okay. Besides Dr. Creusere’s testimony and your opinion that it makes sense to
`
`you, is there any other facts or data that you’re relying on to support your
`
`conclusion as to this third opinion that we’ve identified? . . . A: It’s possible there’s
`
`something else in my declaration that directly relates to that. I don’t remember
`
`offhand. I mean, unless I’m forgetting, that’s kind of the main gist of it.”); id.,
`
`43:16-44:1 (explaining that Dr. Zeger’s characterization of Dr. Creusere’s
`
`testimony was a “third opinion”); Ex. 2004, ¶¶23-24 (citing only Dr. Creusere’s
`
`deposition testimony).
`
`The evidence relied on by Patent Owner does not support a conclusion that
`
`Hsu would always have been used to identify a data type if a POSA were to have
`
`considered their teachings together. To the contrary, and as Dr. Zeger’s testimony
`
`confirms, there were good reasons a POSA would not have used Hsu’s techniques
`
`on every data block.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Dr. Zeger’s Cross-Examination Testimony Reveals
`Good Reasons Why a POSA Would Not Have Used
`Hsu When Franaszek Lacked a Data Type
`Descriptor.
`
`Dr. Zeger’s declaration testimony that “the POSA would rely on Hsu’s
`
`powerful data type recognition and compressibility analysis approach to identify a
`
`data type and three redundancy metrics for each of Franaszek’s data blocks” is
`
`unsupported by any facts or data, and thus violates the requirements of 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.65(a). Ex. 2004, ¶23. It is also contradicted by his deposition testimony,
`
`which reveals compelling reasons why a POSA would not use Hsu when
`
`Franaszek lacks a data type.
`
` Rather, Dr. Zeger’s deposition testimony
`
`demonstrates that a POSA would have understood that if Franaszek lacks an
`
`indication of data type, using Hsu would likely result in a determination of the
`
`wrong data type.
`
`Dr. Zeger explained that Franaszek might lack a descriptor where the data
`
`was of an unknown type:
`
`Q: . . . What you said was – after you said mislabeled
`“It just was inadvertently left unlabeled. It could be that
`there was no accurate type that was available for it.”
`That’s what you said.
`So, could you explain that for me a little bit more?
`A: That’s basically the situation where it’s an unknown type.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Ex. 1035, 55:1-13; see also id., 53:24-54:17 (agreeing that Franaszek might not
`
`have a descriptor because the block “might be an unknown data type”). Situations
`
`in which data types are unrecognized are a reality in the field of data compression.
`
`Id., 55:16-22.
`
`A POSA would have seen that relying on Hsu where Franaszek lacks a data
`
`type in its data type field (205) would have been counterproductive. According to
`
`Dr. Zeger, Hsu will always return one of ten data types specified in Hsu—whether
`
`or not the data is actually one of those ten types. See, e.g., Ex. 2004, ¶¶27, 29.
`
`When Hsu receives a block with a data type that is not specified in Hsu’s system,
`
`Hsu will guess at the data type knowing full well that the guess is wrong:
`
`Q: So would it be fair to say that when Hsu encounters a data block
`that doesn’t, you know, contain one of the classes of data that are
`spelled out here, it will do its best to classify it as one of these types,
`but it might be wrong?
`A: That’s generally the way any kind of recognition algorithm
`works. That’s how – anything that’s trying to tell you what
`category something fits in or any type of pattern matching will tell
`you that – its best guess form among a predefined set of values.
`And in this case there’s ten different types, and Hsu would try to
`give you its best guess. . . . .
`Ex. 1035, 97:18-98:9. When asked about how Hsu would handle “randomized
`
`data” (a type not specified by Hsu), Dr. Zeger testified that Hsu would classify that
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`data into one of Hsu’s ten types—even though it would be wrong. Id., 98:10-25.
`
`The same wrong guess would occur with video data (a type also not specified by
`
`Hsu). Id., 95:25-97:17. Dr. Creusere acknowledged that Hsu may “guess the file
`
`type regardless of whether the guess was made confidently or not.” Ex. 1002, ¶65.
`
`Using Hsu to provide the wrong data type has adverse consequences when
`
`viewed in combination with a POSA’s understanding of Franaszek. A POSA
`
`would have understood that Franaszek’s data type is missing when the file type is
`
`unknown. Ex. 1035, 53:1-13, 53:24-54:17; Ex. 1002, ¶131 (Franaszek uses a
`
`“default” encoder to compress “a data block having an unknown data type”).
`
`Under Dr. Zeger’s view of Hsu, a POSA would have been left with a binary choice
`
`when a data type is unrecognized: (1) use Hsu to guess at the data type knowing it
`
`would be wrong and use Franaszek’s encoders tailored to the wrong data type,
`
`contrary to Franaszek’s teachings, see Ex. 1004, 5:49-54, or (2) use Franaszek’s
`
`“default list of compression methods,” which a POSA would have understood to be
`
`designed for use when “no data type is available,” see id., 5:53-54. Rather than
`
`apply Hsu knowing it would arrive at the wrong result, a POSA would have found
`
`it obvious to use the tool meant for unknown data types—i.e., Franaszek’s single
`
`default encoder. Patent Owner’s argument to the contrary should be rejected.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`c.
`
`Patent Owner’s Theory Rests On The Unstated And
`Legally-Unsupported Assumption That A POSA
`Would Have Only Seen One Obvious Way To
`Combine Prior Art Teachings.
`
`Patent Owner presupposes that a POSA would have only seen one obvious
`
`variation on the prior art. The law does not require a showing that a combination
`
`of prior art teachings is the most obvious way to combine teachings. Nor does the
`
`law require proof that a POSA would not have seen other obvious ways to combine
`
`teachings. Graham does not require seeking out those facts. See Graham v. John
`
`Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). When addressing the concept of teaching away
`
`(something Patent Owner does not rely on here), the Federal Circuit has explained
`
`that “just because better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an
`
`inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes . . . .” In re Mouttet, 686
`
`F.3d 1322, 1333-34 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`To accept the premise underlying Patent Owner’s argument is to turn a blind
`
`eye to variations on the prior art that would have been obvious to those in the
`
`field—even if perhaps not the most obvious variations. This would unseat §103
`
`from its role in ensuring patents satisfy their constitutional purpose. Graham, 383
`
`U.S. at 5-17 (“Congress may not authorize the issuance of patents whose effects
`
`are to remove existent knowledge from the public domain . . . .”). Acceptance of
`
`Patent Owner’s “if-then” proposition would allow patents on “advances that would
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`occur in the ordinary course without real invention,” thereby “retard[ing] progress .
`
`. . ,” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Showing one
`
`variant of the prior art would also have been obvious does not detract from a
`
`showing that a different variant on the prior art would also have been obvious.
`
`Here, Patent Owner’s position that a POSA presented with Franaszek and
`
`Hsu would have used Hsu (if at all) all of the time, does not lead to the conclusion
`
`that a POSA would not also have found it obvious to apply Hsu only when
`
`Franaszek’s data blocks have data type information. Indeed, the fully developed
`
`record supports the analysis presented in the Petition, i.e., that using Franaszek’s
`
`type descriptors along with Hsu’s method would help Hsu more quickly identify
`
`applicable data types. Pet., 33-36.
`
`d.
`
`The Challenge Presented In The Petition Does Not
`Turn On Whether Hsu “Always Identifies a Data
`Type.”
`
`Patent Owner makes much of its conclusion that Hsu will always classify a
`
`data block as one of the types listed out in Hsu’s Table 1. POR, 7-11. But Dr.
`
`Creusere explained that his opinion would be unchanged whether or not Hsu works
`
`this way. Specifically, in his declaration, Dr. Creusere observed that a POSA
`
`“would have understood Hsu’s ‘new file’ to be implemented in one of two possible
`
`manners”: (1) it could return “data” if “matches are not found to existing data
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`types,” or (2) it could “attempt to guess the file type regardless of whether the
`
`guess was made confidently or not.” Ex. 1002, ¶65. Guessing, Dr. Creusere noted,
`
`has “a number of downsides.” Id. But, at bottom, Dr. Creusere determined that
`
`regardless of which approach a POSA would have understood from Hsu, it is not
`
`“material to my opinions regarding the obviousness of the subject matter of the
`
`claims.” Id.
`
`Hsu may return an indication that the data type is unknown or may
`
`incorrectly determines a data type for data types that are not on Hsu’s list. It does
`
`not matter. There is no question that—regardless of which view of the facts is
`
`taken—the combined teachings of Franaszek and Hsu present a POSA with “a
`
`finite number of identified, predictable solutions” to the known problem of
`
`compressing heterogeneous files. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. A “person of
`
`ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
`
`technical grasp” by using only Franaszek’s encoder intended for unknown data
`
`types, and not Hsu’s techniques when a data type cannot reliably be determined.
`
`See id. Nothing in the Petition or Dr. Creusere’s testimony suggests that a POSA
`
`would believe that every aspect of Hsu’s methodology would always be used to
`
`evaluate every data block and return one of the ten specified data types.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Patent Owner’s Criticisms Of The Combination of Franaszek and
`Sebastian Are Not Well-Founded.
`
`Patent Owner offers a number of critiques of the combination of Franaszek
`
`and Sebastian. We respond to the merits of those critiques in the sections that
`
`follow, but we first note that addressing the merits of those criticisms is
`
`unnecessary to support a conclusion of obviousness.
`
`1.
`
`Reliance On Sebastian Is Not Needed To Support A
`Conclusion of Obviousness Because The Instituted
`Combination Of Franaszek, Hsu, And Sebastian
`Encompasses Franaszek And Hsu.
`
`Before we turn to showing why Patent Owner’s challenges to the
`
`combination of Franaszek and Sebastian are not well-founded, we first show that
`
`the Board need not even reach those issues in its Final Written Decision.
`
`The Petition demonstrated that Franaszek disclosed the limitation “wherein
`
`if one or more encoders are associated . . . .” See Pet., 39-41 (quoting Ex. 1001
`
`(Cert.), 2:57-60). Patent Owner has not disputed Petitioner’s showing that
`
`Franaszek discloses this limitation (which Patent Owner calls [d1] and [d2]). The
`
`Petition presents Sebastian as an alternative argument in case Patent Owner
`
`attempted to show (incorrectly) that Franaszek lacks a single or default encoder.
`
`Pet., 29-31. Patent Owner and its expert acknowledged that the Petition presents
`
`Sebastian as an “alternative” theory for the “single” and “default” limitations of
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`claims 104 and 105. But, they did not contend that Franaszek lacks a single default
`
`encoder.
`
`As laid out in the Petition, the combination of Franaszek, Hsu, and Sebastian
`
`encompasses the combination of Franaszek and Hsu. While the Board exercised
`
`its discretion and denied institution based on Franaszek and Hsu alone for
`
`efficiency reasons, see Inst. Dec., 18-19, the analysis of Franaszek and Hsu was
`
`intertwined with the alternative argument based on Franaszek, Hsu, and Sebastian.
`
`Barring Petitioners from pursuing a ground raised in the Petition and was
`
`“expressly incorporated into other proposed grounds of unpatentability on which
`
`the Board instituted would . . . unfairly prejudice” Petitioners. CRFD Res., Inc. v.
`
`Dish Network Corp., No. 2016-2198, Slip op., p.29 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2017) (Ex.
`
`1034). At least one Board decision further confirms that the Board need not reach
`
`Sebastian’s teachings to find the challenged claims obvious. Mobotix Corp. v. E-
`
`Watch, Inc., IPR2013-00334, Paper 18 (PTAB Jan. 10, 2014) (where trial instituted
`
`on three-way combination of references “Petitioner is free to prove the obviousness
`
`of claims 1-10 based on” one reference alone); cf. Application of Kronig, 539 F.2d
`
`1300, 1302-03 (CCPA 1976) (affirming Board obviousness rejection based on
`
`three references where examiner relied on four reference combination because
`
`three reference combination was not a new grounds of rejection). Nonetheless, the
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`combination of Franaszek, Hsu, and Sebastian renders claims 104 and 105 obvious
`
`as described in the Petition.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioners Have Provided “Actual Evidence” In Support
`Of Their Positions In The Form Of Declarations And
`Documents.
`
`While Patent Owner contends that “Petitioners do not provide actual
`
`evidence that a POSA would have reason to believe that Franaszek’s system will
`
`ever fail to associate at least one encoder with an identified data type,” POR, 15,
`
`that argument ignores Dr. Creusere’s opinions and the documents he cites. See
`
`Pet., 42-43 (citing Ex. 1002, ¶¶65, 146, 174-177 to explain why a POSA would
`
`have understood that data might arrive in Franaszek’s system and not be
`
`recognized by that system). Dr. Creusere explains how in the 1998-2001
`
`timeframe, “those skilled in the art were aware that the number of different data
`
`types was increasing,” and how the UNIX “magic file” was “created as part of the
`
`‘file’ command” to address the increase in the number of data file types. Ex. 1002,
`
`¶175; see also id., ¶¶65, 147 (discussing UNIX “magic file”). Dr. Creusere further
`
`explains that “in some circumstances Franaszek may not be able to understand the
`
`particular type . . . .” Id., ¶176. Dr. Zeger testified that he encountered systems
`
`that did not know data types too. Ex. 1035, 55:16-19, 77:14-18. Testimony is
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`“actual evidence.” So are the documents Dr. Creusere cites. See, e.g., Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶65, 146, 171-77; Ex. 1027; Ex. 1028; Ex. 1029.
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Zeger’s Opinions About The Combination With
`Sebastian Ignore The Facts And Are Conclusory.
`
`Patent Owner’s reliance on Dr. Zeger’s conclusion that a POSA would have
`
`understood that Franaszek would never fail to associate an encoder with a
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
