IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`Confirmation No.: 2572
`
`FALLON,JamesJ.
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Control No.: 95/000,479
`
`Filed: May 28, 2009
`
`Examiner: LEUNG,Christina Y.
`
`Atty. Docket: 2855.002REX3
`
`For: SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR
`DATA COMPRESSION SUCH AS
`CONTENT DEPENDENT DATA
`COMPRESSION
`
`Realtime’s Appeal Brief Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.67
`
`Mail Stop “Inter Partes Reexam”
`Attn: Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`Pursuant to the Right of Appeal Notice mailed on January 6, 2011, Realtime Data, LLC,
`
`(herein “Patent Owner’),
`
`in the above-captioned inter partes reexamination involving U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,161,506 (“the ‘506 Patent’), timely filed its Notice of Appeal on February 7, 2011,
`
`from the final rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 20-23, 27, 39, 43, 69-73, 79, 81, 82, 84-90, 96
`
`and 98. The third-party requester, Blue Coat Systems, Inc., did not file a notice of cross-appeal,
`
`though it had the ability to do so based on its proposed rejections regarding the LBX, French,
`
`Sebastian, Franaszek, Lafe, and Reynar references that were not adopted.
`
`(RAN at 6-8.) This
`
`appeal is therefore limited to issues raised herein. Patent Owner’s appeal brief is due on April
`
`21, 2011, (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.66(a)).
`
`Patent Ownerhereby timely files one electronic copy of this Appeal Brief, together with
`
`the required fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 41.20(b)(2). If additional fees are necessary to prevent
`
`abandonmentof this appeal, then any such fees required therefore are hereby authorized to be
`
`chargedto the undersigned’s Deposit Account No. 19-0036.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 1 of 53
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 1 of 53
`
`

`

`I.
`Ul.
`IV.
`
`VI.
`
`VU.
`
`-2-
`
`Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`Table of Contents
`
`B.
`
`C
`
`D
`
`E.
`
`F,
`
`Real Party in Interest...........ccccecccccsseecssneeesnneeeesseeessseeesescesesseeeeseceesnesessaecesseecssseenasassenaseeas 5
`Related Appeals and Interferences... eecceeseccesceeccetesceseeecseecnseesaesneeenaesnseeseseneesseessens 5
`Status Of Claims.0......eceeccecsssceeecseesececesseeseeeseceseeeseeeecescevsceensesasesscseessevscesscesecsssesecsssesaseenes 8
`Status of Amendment..........cccesscesecesseeeeseseneecseceeecenecesseeeacetseecseeesneessessdeecsesesevenesoseseneoees 9
`Summary of Claimed Subject Matter 2.0... eee eescceeseeeneetsseresaeceseveeseseasseseesessseseeeenseens 9
`A.
`Independent Claim 1 oo... ce eeecseesecetsceeseesseesseeseeeseessonssessessecssoesssseessceesseneseseaeens 9
`B.
`Independent Claim 69.0.0...eeceececceeecencceeseessenseesnseeseesssscssenssesessasessessonsesesessonees 10
`C
`Independent Claim 86 ..........cccescessceeecceseceesceesceeesceeeneeseeecseesseeeseesssecsssessesesesserees il
`Issues to Be Reviewed on Appeal... escecessccesessecesecescneeeseeeesessesaccssessesecsceseseseeeeseeee 12
`A
`Ground 1 — Anticipation by U.S. Patent No. 6,253,264 to Sebastian (“Sebastian”’)
`essaesseeceneessasseseesseesceseescessenseacensenseacenseaseseesecaeeessessesecssesesseeseescesessesaesasesessssaeseseeeeees 12
`Ground 2 — Anticipation by U.S. Patent No. 5,870,036 to Franaszek (“Franaszek’’)
`sesuseeaeeeseesceussessecssceseeseesesscescsscessenseesesessesssecscesseesnsenecsaecaecsessassaeosaesaersessasesevsuensecss 12
`Ground 3 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in view of Franaszek or U.S. Patent No.
`5,951,623 to Reynar (““Reynar”) .........cceessccseseeceesneeessecessecessseecesceesaeessseeoenseeessnaee 12
`Ground 4 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in view of “Data Compression
`Procedures for Data Circuit Terminating Equipment Using Error Correction
`Procedures,” CCITT Recommendation V.42 bis, 1990, (“CCITT V.42 bis”) or
`ROYMALoe eesccesseceeceesceescceeeceesceeeseessceeeseceseeesseessceesseeeseeessscnsascssecsesesesesscenseceeeeee ns 12
`Ground 5 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,167,034 to
`MacLean (“MacLean”) ........escccsscececcesseceesececscessscesccerseeescecseecesersscessesssseesaecsuaoseees 12
`Ground 6 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in view ofInternational Application WO
`95/29437 to Kawashima (“Kawashima”) ...........:ccsscssesscesesscesersecessesssesoeseoneeesenses 13
`ATQUMENE0000... eeeceeeeceeseeeseecesceneeecneeeesecesseecsecessesersesesesessessesessseesscssssessecssesseccesessassnestonses 13
`A.
`Standard Of ROVIOW........cssccescseseceeecceseceeseceesacesseetsneeeseersceeseceesessrecsseessareseeesserseeees 13
`B.
`Summary of the Reexamination before the Central Reexamination Unit............ 13
`1.
`Proposed rejections based on LBX (Low Bandwidth X Extension,
`Protocol Version 1.0, X Consortium Standard) .......... cc ccceesesseeeceseeereeeeee 14
`Proposed rejections based on French nn... cece eeseereeneceeesssssssessesessessees 14
`2.
`Proposed rejections based on Sebastian... eee eeeeeeeseeeneeessereeeeeneees 14
`3.
`Proposed rejections based on FranasZek........e ete eeesseseseeserssseseceeeeeeeees 15
`4.
`Proposed rejections based on Lafe........eee eeeeeeeeersesereetesceessenssesseneesaes 16
`5.
`Proposed rejections based on Reynar............ccsssscesceseeeeeeseeneeeeeeaeenasessoeaee 16
`6.
`Summary of Reexamination before the CRU 000... eee eeeeeseeeeeeeseeteeeeees 17
`7.
`The Problem to Be Solved by the Present Invention... ee eeeeeeeeceseeseeeeseeeees 17
`Use of the Term “Analyzing” in the Specification ..........cceeeeseeeeceteeeeeeeeeeseeseeee 18
`1.
`Patent Owneris Allowed to be his Own Lexicographet............eeeseeeeee 18
`2.
`Patent Ownerhas Provided a Definition of “Analyzing” ....eee 19
`3.
`Dr. Modestino’s Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 cee eee eeseeeeeeees 23
`4.
`The CRU Has Misconstrued the Meaning of “Analyze”... cess 24
`5.
`The CRU Did Not Properly Consider Modestino’s Declaration............... 25
`Grounds 1 and 2—Rejections of Claims 69, 70, 72, 73, 79, 81, 82, 84 and 85
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Franaszek and Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 21-23, 43,
`69, 72, 73, 79 and 81 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Sebastian ........eee 26
`
`C.
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 2 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 2 of 53
`
`

`

`-3-
`
`Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`1.
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Overview Of Rejections.........ecesecesesecsseeesecesseecneecsscesseecsesssesessseessseesonenes 26
`Franaszek does not Disclose “Analyzing a Data Block”to “Identify One
`or More Data Typesof the Data Block,” or “Analyzing said Data Block to
`Determine a Type of said Data BlOCkK”oo... eects seeeeeestsesseeeeesseeneeneeeees 26
`Sebastian does not disclose “Analyzing a Data Block”to “Identify One or
`More Data Types of the Data Block,” or “Analyzing said Data Block to
`Determine a Type of said Data Block”oo... eee eee eeceeeeeeeeeeeseeeteeeerensaseseees 30
`COnCIUSION ........csceesceesseescecsecescetsaeeescessceesseeeseeesseesscesnseessasesssesuscaeacneasenees 32
`4.
`Ground 3 — Rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over Sebastian in
`view of Franaszek or Reymar «0.0.0... ssc eeeecesceeceeseeceseesseeesseceseeeeassesessesesscssesesssnete 33
`1.
`Overview Of Rejection .........ceescessceseeseseececetseceeseeesceesseeeseecreeerneesseseeenssees 33
`2.
`Sebastian in view of Franaszek or Reynar does not disclose “Analyzing a
`Data Block of an Input Data Stream to Identify One or More Data Types
`of the Data BIOCk” 0... cece eeseeseeecsneecessseesseeeeeseeessseesssceresscooseecnsesensaeees 33
`Conclusion ........:cccesccsscesscesssesccesceesceneessecenseseeeesessenseeedassecseaesavssessesseseeesees 33
`3.
`Ground 4 — Rejection of claims 27 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over
`Sebastian in view of CCITT V.42 bis or Reynar eee esceeeecseesneeseceseeeeeeeees 34
`1.
`Overview Of Rejection 0... eeeeesessessecteceeceeceseessececesecessessesensusssevsaseeenees 34
`2.
`Sebastian in view of CCITT V.42 bis or Reynar does not disclose
`“Analyzing a Data Block of an Input Data Stream to Identify One or More
`Data Types of the Data Block” ooo. cescceeeseeesceseceseeneesescneesentesseaees 34
`CONCIUSION ........eesccesscessceescceeseeeeccesseeesceesseceneeeeeseseseseeeeseseeeesseesaesnsenseres 35
`3.
`Ground 5 — Rejection of claim 82 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over Sebastian in
`View Of MacLean ..........cceesecssccssceesceescsseesecseseecsssessessesesesesssscsasessesacessonsoseenseeess 35
`1.
`Overview Of Rejection .........ccceccsessecseeeseceeeceeeaeeeseseseceecersseesseersneeneeesaeeeeees 35
`2.
`Sebastian in view of MacLean doesnot disclose “Analyzing said Data
`Block to Determine a Type of said Data Block” 00.0... eeeeeeeeeeeeeeneeereee 35
`COncClUSION ........ccccsssecsssecesecescecencecsacesneceeceeeeseeecsaessecesseerseeseeersnecnseesesensees 36
`3.
`Ground 6 — Rejection of claims 70, 71, 84-90, 96 and 98 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`Over Sebastian in view of Kawashima.............ccsccsccesscssccecceeeceseseceseeeseeeeeneeeesesees 36
`1.
`Overview Of Rejection ..........:cceeesssceseesseeeececsceeeetecseeeeeseeaeseaeeeseesseeesesseees 36
`2.
`Regarding claims 70, 71, 84 and 85, Sebastian in view of Kawashima does
`not disclose “Analyzing said Data Block to Determine a Type of said Data
`BLOCK”00... eeeessecceecessceeeceseceeccsscenecseeseseseeesacsnceseseseesateseesssasssesessoesseeeerses 36
`Regarding claims 86-90, 96 and 98, Sebastian in view of Kawashima does
`not Disclose “Determining Whether to Output said Data Block in
`Received Form or in a Compressed Form”or “Determining Whetherto
`Compress Said Data Block with Content Dependent Data Compression
`Based on the Type of Said Data Block” oo... eee eeeeeeeeeeneeseseseeenceseneees 37
`A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Not Combine Sebastian and
`Kawashima........ccccccsscccsccesccsecesseeeseeececcesneeseescesaceeaesseceaesecsaesseeescesesseessoess 38
`Conclusion .........::cceccesssseeseseesceeseceesecesececeseseceeneesscesseeesseesseeseeesseesssessseesss 42
`5.
`Conclusion ....ccscccscsccsesesesscscsssssssssscscscasssssssesesescsssscseseseseuescsssececseseseecessseaescessseeeess 43
`Claims Appendix ..........cccsccsssssceeneceseeseesessceseescsssenssscecessesasesesacesseseessesseecesseasenssaseeasnenss 44
`Evidence Appendix ..........eeesseeccseesecesceseceeseeseessssencesesaeesessesscesessaescesaesnesseeseserscessesseaneeess 52
`Related Proceedings Appendix... ceccsssssscsscssscssssesesesessessesseessessessssesesesesnessssssscneseeseess 53
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`VII.
`IX.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 3 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 3 of 53
`
`

`

`XI.
`
`Certificate Of ServiCe .........cccccccececceccsscscccsscssesccccececesevsecescessceuersescecsscseeesceaaussssesseeseeteceeess 54
`
`-4-
`
`Reexam of U.S, Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,478
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 4 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 4 of 53
`
`

`

`I.
`
`RealParty in Interest
`
`The real party in interest in this principal brief on appeal is the patent owner Realtime
`
`Data LLC, (Patent Crwner). The Patent Owneris the assignee of record for the patent under
`
`reexamination, U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506 (“the ‘506 patent”), attached as Exhibit A. The
`
`original assignmentforthepriority filing for the ‘506 patent was recorded with the United States
`
`Patent & Trademark Office on August 10, 2010 at reel 024812, frame 0268. The original
`
`assignment establishing Patent Owner’s ownership of the ‘506 patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 8.
`
`I,
`
`Related Appeals and Interferences
`
`All prior and pending appeals, interferences or judicial proceedings known to Patent
`
`Owner, Patent Owner’s legal representatives, or assignee that may berelatedto, directly affect or
`
`be directly affected by or have a bearing on the Board’s decision in the pending appeal are listed
`
`below. In addition, a summary of related Appeal Briefs for Reexam control numbers 95/000,464
`
`and 95/000,478 is also presented below.
`
`Reexaminations
`
`
`
`Reexam #
`
` - 90/009,428 6,601,104 | System and ecision affirming
`| Examiner’s rejections
`_ Data Storage and Retrieval
`beeen
`Mailemailed3/18/11
`| Content‘IndependentData‘Compression| Noticeof‘Appeal
`| 95/000,464 | 6,624,761
`_ Method and System
`|| filed 2/7/2011,
`| Appeal Brief filed
`|4/21/2011
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 5 of 53
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 5 of 53
`
`

`

`-6-
`
`Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent
`_Reexam#
`Title
`- 95/000,466 7,321,937 _ System‘and Methodsfor Accelerated Appeal Brieffiled
`
`
`
`‘ Data Storage and Retrieval
`10/26/2010,
`: Petition to terminate
`' reexam denied
`(1/26/2011
`re ee
`- 95/000,478
`7,378,992 Content‘Independent Data,‘Compression| Noticeof‘Appeal
`Method and System
`| filed 2/7/2011,
`| Appeal Brief filed
`4/21/201 1
`|
`95/000,486 | 6,604,158©System|‘andMethods for“Accelerated~EOTGranted 3/29/Ne
`. |Data|StorageandRetrieval
`i
`7,714,747 |Data Compression Systems and Methods|OrderGranting
`
`
`-95/001,517
`Requestfor Inter
`Pates Reexamination
`| Granted3/9/2011
`lL
`95/001,533|7,417,568 ‘System“And Method ForDataFeed|IPRFiled
`| Acceleration And Encryption
`01/31/2011, filing
`
`' date of 3/1/11granted|
`ae
`7,400,274"System AndMethodForData Feed | Decisiontogrant and |
`95/001,544
`' Acceleration And Encryption
`| non--final office
`Co
`_actionissued3/25/11
`
`7,777,65195/001,581 “System~“AndMethodFor Data Feed||IPRFiled3/21/2011,|Acceleration And Encryption
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Notice of Assignment |
`and Filing Date
`issued 3/29/2011
`
`Litigation
`
`|~Pending”
`| Realtime Data LLC d/b/a/IXO v. Metropcs Texas, LLC,
`1
`|
`
`eeftalsNo. 6:10-cv-00493-LED(E.D.Texas)Lo.
`: 2
`| Realtime Data LLCd/b/a/IXOv. CME Group Inc., et
`| Pending
`|_.Lal., No. 6:10-cv-00424-LED(E.D.Texas) |
`3Realtime Data LLC d/b/a/IXO v. ThomsonReuters
`| Pending
`~~
`Corporation et al., No. 6:10-cv-00425-LED (E.D.
`fo
`| Texas) _
`
`Realtime DataLLCd/b/a/IXOv.Morgan Stanleyetal.,|Pending
`
`_1No.6:10-cv-00426-LED (E.D.Texas)
`
`Dismissed
`Realtime lata LLC d/b/a/ IXOy. Packeteer,Inc.etal.,
`
`No. 6:08-cv-00144-LED(E.D.Texas) fo
`
`
`6|RealtimeData LLCd/b/a/ IXO v. Thomson Reuters ' Pending
`__|Corporationetal., No. 6:09-cv-00333-LED(E.D.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 6 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 6 of 53
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RewltinieDataLLC d/bla/IXOvy. MorganStanleyetal, |Pending
`______No. 6:09-cv-00326-LED(E.D. Texas)
`eeSe
`8 ‘RealtimeDataLLCd/b/a/ IXO ». CME GroupInc., et
`| Pending
`_al., No. 6:09-cy-00327-LED(E.D.Texas)
`‘ Dismissed
`| Chicage BoardOptionsExchange, inc., v. Realtime
`9
`= DatData LLCd/b/a/[XO,No. 09 CV448 (NDT)
`10 | Thomson Reuters Corporation v.Realtime Data, ELC
`| Dismissed
`|.D/B/AIXO, No, 2:09-cv-7868-RMB(SDNY)
`i RealtimeData, LLC d/b/a IXO v. CMEGroup inc.,et “| Pending
`7 al. (1D, No. 6:10-cv-246 (N_D. Texas filed May11,
`
`| Pending
`12 | Realtime Data LLCd/b/a/IXO y. Thomson Reuters
`|
`| Corporation et al. (1), No. 6:10-cv-247 (NLD. Texas
`oe
`|filedMay11, 2010)
`
`| Pending
`| Realtime Data, LLCd/b/a XQ y. MorganStanley,et
`| al. (ID, No. 6:10-0v-248 (N.D. Texasfiled May 11,
`
`2010)
`
`Appeal Brief Summary
`
`The following related three cases are currently on appeal to the Board.
`
`Reexam # 95/000,478|
`
`
`Reexam # 95/000,479
`Pat. No. 7,378,992
`i
`
`
`
`Pat. Ne. 7,161,566
`
`2855. 00ZREAS
`2855. O02REX3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`69, 70, 72, 73, 79, 81,
`3.7, 9, 11-13,18,
`
`I,
`
`
`20, 21, 26, 28 and 32
`82, 84 and 85
`
`
`
`CRAN 87)
`es
`{GRAN47}
`12-15, 18, 26, 21 and
`
`1-5, 8,9, 11, 17, 21-
`
`
`
`
`23, 43, 69, 72, 73, 79
`26
`and &1
`
`
`
`| (RAN &6)
`
`Reference/
`
`
`Reexam#95/000,464
`
`Pat. No, 6,624,761
`
`/Claims
`2855.002REX2
`Franaszek~~ «1-3 and 7
`
`
`
`: Sebastian
`
`
`
`17 and 21
`
`
`17 and 21
`‘Park in view of
`
`
`
`Whiting
`
`
`
`
`i
`(RAN®10)
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 7 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 7 of 53
`
`

`

`~&-
`
`Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`’Seroussiin view of|17 and 21
`Whiting
`
`27 and 39
`
`
`
`
`French
`
`| (RAN £11)
`
`__ |(RAN 12)
`33 and 36
`
`33 and 36
`
`
`
`Reexam # 95/000,479 | Reexam#95/000,478 |
`Reference)=|Reexam#95/000,464
`Pat. No. 7,161,506
`| Pat. No. 7,378,992
`Pat. No. 6,624,761
`
`
`/Claims|2855.002REX2
`2855.002REX3
`2855.002REX5
`
`
`
`
`20
`Sebastian in view
`
`of Franaszek or
`
`
`(RAN 48}
`Reynar
`Sebastian in view
`
`
`of CCITT V.42 or
`
` CRAIN9)eeee
`Reynar
`82
`Sebastian in view
`
`of MacLean
`_L (RAN 410)
`
`
`
`
`70, 71, 84-90, 96 and
`Sebastian in view
`c
`of Kawashima
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Franaszek in view —_
`
`
`
`
`
`
`; i
`
`| of Montville or
`: Rao
`
`' Sebastian in view
`‘ of Montville or
`‘ Rao
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`(RAN 919)
`10, 19, 27 and 29
`
`(RAN {10)
`
`11,
`
`Status of Claims
`
`Claims 1-9, 11, 16, 17, 20-23, 27, 39, 41-43, 69-73, 79, 81, 82, 84-90, 96 and 98 of the
`
`‘506 patent are currently pending and subject to reexamination. Claims 1, 69 and 86 are
`
`independent claims. The Examiner found claims6, 7, 16, 41 and 42 to be patentable.’ Claims I-
`
`5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 20-23, 27, 39, 43, 69-73, 79, 81, 82, 84-90, 96 and 98 currently stand rejected.
`
`' Thoughentitled to do so, Third Party Requester did not cross-appeal Examiner’s finding
`of patentability of these claims.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 8 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 8 of 53
`
`

`

`-9-
`
`Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`Patent Owner appeals all of the rejections of each of claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 20-23, 27, 39, 43,
`
`69-73, 79, 81, 82, 84-90, 96 and 98.
`
`IV.=Status ofAmendments
`
`Patent Owner has not filed any amendments to the claims or the specification.
`
`V.
`
`Summary of Claimed Subject Matter
`
`A,
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`Claim 1 is directed towards a method of data for compressing data based on an analysis
`
`of data blocks including content independent data compression and content dependent data
`
`compression.
`
`If a data type of the data block is identified then content dependent data
`
`compression is performed. If the data type is not identified then data compression with a single
`
`data compression encoder is performed. Support for claim 1
`
`in the specification of the “506
`
`patent is listed in the following table. However, every instance where the claim term, element, or
`
`limitation is described in the specification is not listed, as such citation is not required and would
`
`be inefficient. These exemplary citations are not an admission or disclaimer of patent scope.
`
`A method for compressing data, comprising the stepsof:
`
`Abstract; 3:49-61;
`18:15-18; 21:11-14;
`24:3-8; Figure 14A-D,
`#1400-#1448; Figures
`| 16A-D, #1600-#1648;
`Figures 18A-D, #1800-
`| #1850
`Abstract; 18:21-34;
`
`§ 21:15-26; 24:9-21
`
`: data types of the data block,
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 9 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 9 of 53
`
`

`

`-10-
`
`Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`
`
`Abstract; 18:21-34;
`the input data stream comprisinga plurality of disparate data types;
`
`eee21:15-26; 249-21
`
`
`
`performing content dependent data compression; if a data type of the}18:29-42; 22:24-29;
`data block iis identified;
`25:22-28
`
`
`‘performingdatacompression with a single data compression encoder, ! 18:34-39; 21:25-28;
`
`
`if a data type of the data blockis not identified.
`24:21-24
`
`B.
`
`Independent Claim 69
`
`Claim 69 is directed towards a method of data compression including receiving an
`
`uncompressed data block and analyzing the data block to determine a data type of the data block.
`
`If an encoder is associated with the type of identified data then that encoder is used, if the
`
`encoder is not associated with the type of data, then a different encoder is used. Support for
`
`claim 69 in the specification of the ‘506 patent is listed in the following table. However, every
`
`instance where the claim term, element, or limitation is described in the specification is not
`
`listed, as such citation is not required and would be inefficient. These exemplary citations are
`
`not an admission or disclaimer of patent scope.
`
`
`
`
`
`A meth
`
`| Abstract; 3:49-61;
`d comprising:
`| 18:15-18; 21:11-14;
`
`
`| 24:3-8; Figure 14A-D,
`| #1400-#1448; Figures
`| 16A-D, #1600-#1648;
`
`
`
`Figures 18A-D, #1800-
`#1850
`
`
`
`
`receiving a data block in an uncompressed form, said data block
`6:58-59; 14:54-57;
`
`15:28-30; 16:9-11
`mmm
`being included in a data streams
`
`Abstract; 18:21-34;
`- analyzing said data block to determine a type of said data block; and
`
`
`21:15-26;24:9-21
`
`
`
` ‘compressing said data block to provide acompressed 4data block,
`
`18:29-42; 22:24-29;
`
`
`wherein if one or more encoders are associated to saidtype,__
`| 25:22-28
`
`
`
`18:29-42; 22:24-29;
`compressing said data block with at least one of said one or more
`
`
`
`25:22-28
`' encoders,
`
`
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 10 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 10 of 53
`
`

`

`-ll-
`
`Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`18-34-39; 21-25-28; 24:21-24
`|elsecompressingsaid data block with a data compression encoder.
`
`C.
`
`Independent Claim 86
`
`Claim 86 is directed towards a method of data compression including receiving a data
`
`block and determining, based on analysis of the data, whether to output the data block in
`
`received form or a compressed form. Support for claim 86 in the specification of the *506 patent
`
`is listed in the following table. However, every instance where the claim term, element, or
`
`limitation is described in the specification is not listed, as such citation is not required and would
`
`be inefficient. These exemplary citations are not an admissionor disclaimer of patent scope.
`
`receiving a data block, wherein saiddata block is included in a data
`SECO,
`nnn
`determining whether to output said data block in received form or in 4
`compressed form; and
`
`Figure 12, #1206-#1214;
`j 14:8-11
`| outputting said data block in received form or said compressed form|Figure 10b, #132 and
`based onsaid determination, wherein outputting said data block in
`#140; Figure 12, #1208
`| said compressed form comprises determining whether to compress
`and #1214; 18:29-42;
`| said data block with content dependent data compression based on the 22242 2522-28;
`i type ofsald data block or to compress said data block with a single
`18:34-39; 21:25-28;
`data conrpression encoder.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 11 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`A method comprising:
`
`| Abstract; 3:49-61;
`| 1815-18; 2b:1 1-14;
`24:3-8; Figure 14A-D,
`#i400-#1448; Figures
`| 16A-D, #1600-71648;
`| Figures i8A-D, #1800-
`| #1850
`F 6:58-59; 14:54-57;
`|15:28-30;16:9-1)
`
`| 24:21-24
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 11 of 53
`
`

`

`-12-
`
`Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`VI.
`
`Issues to Be Reviewed on Appeal
`
`Six groundsof rejection remain in this reexamination proceeding.
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1 — Anticipation by U.S. Patent No. 6,253,264 to Sebastian
`(“Sebastian”)
`
`Whether claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 21-23, 43, 69, 72, 73, 79 and 81 were rejected properly
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Sebastian.
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2 — Anticipation by U.S. Patent No. 5,870,036 to Franaszek
`(“Franaszek”)
`
`Whether claims 69, 70, 72, 73, 79, 81, 82, 84 and 85 were rejected properly under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Franaszek.
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in view of Franaszek or U.S. Patent
`No. 5,951,623 to Reynar (“Reynar”)
`
`Whether claim 20 wasrejected properly under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`
`Sebastian in view of Franaszek or Reynar.
`
`D.
`
`Ground 4 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in view of “Data Compression
`Procedures for Data Circuit Terminating Equipment Using Error Correction
`Procedures,” CCITT Recommendation V.42 bis, 1990, (“CCITT V.42 bis”) or
`Reynar
`
`Whether claims 27 and 39 were rejected properly under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`over Sebastian in view of CCITT V.42 bis or Reynar.
`
`E,
`
`Ground 5 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,167,034 to
`MacLean (“MacLean”)
`
`Whether claim 82 was rejected properly under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`
`Sebastian in view of MacLean.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 12 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 12 of 53
`
`

`

`-13-
`
`Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`F.
`
`Ground 6 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in view of International Application
`WO 95/29437 to Kawashima (“Kawashima”)
`
`Whether claims 70, 71, 84-90, 96 and 98 wasrejected properly under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`as obvious over Sebastian in view of Kawashima.
`
`VII. Argument
`
`A,
`
`Standard ofReview
`
`The Examiner determines patentability “on the totality of the record, by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence.” Ex parte Frye, Appeal No. 2009-6013, at *8-9 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 26, 2010)
`
`(precedential opinion). The Board reviews the Examiner’s rejections “for error based upon the
`
`issues identified by appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon.” Id.
`
`Further, the Board “reviews particular finding(s) contested by an appellant anew inlight of all
`
`the evidence and argumentonthat issue.” Jd. at *10. The Office bears the burden of showing
`
`that the claims are unpatentable. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`Therefore, the Examiner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the rejected
`
`claims in the ‘506 patent are unpatentable over the cited art. Because the preponderance of the
`
`evidence favors Patent Owner’s positions, the rejections should be reversed and the challenged
`
`claims confirmed.
`
`B.
`
`Summary ofthe Reexamination before the Central Reexamination Unit
`
`Requester set forth six alleged substantial new questions of patentability (“SNQs”) over
`
`eight references on May 28, 2009. Commensurate with the alleged SNQs, Requester proposed
`
`the following rejections:
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 13 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 13 of 53
`
`

`

`~ 14 -
`
`Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`i
`
`Proposed rejections based on LBX (Low Bandwidth X Extension,
`Protocol Version 1.0, X Consortium Standard)
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 11, 17, 20, 23, 69, 72, 73, 79, 81, 86, 89, 90, 96 and 98 are
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by LBX.
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`over LBX in view of Realtime’s admissions.
`Claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
`LBX in view of Kawashima.
`Claims 9, 81,and 98 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`over LBX in view of:
`o LBX, or
`o Images.
`Claim 16 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over LBX in
`view of:
`o Images, or
`o O’Brian, or
`o. Craft.
`Claim 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over LBX in
`view of CCITT V.42 bis.
`Claim 21 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over LBX in
`view of:
`o Futato, or
`o Aakre.
`Claims 27, 39, 70, 71, 84, 85, 87 and 88 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.§
`103(a) as being obvious over LBX in view of:
`o Kawashima, or
`o French, or
`o CCITT V.42 bis.
`Claim 73 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over LBX in
`view of:
`o Kawashima, or
`o French.
`
`ae
`
`Proposedrejections based on French
`
`Claims 69-73, 79, 81, 84-88, 90, 96 and 98 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`by French.
`Claims 69 and 86 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`over French in view of Realtime’s admissions.
`
`3.
`
`Proposedrejections based on Sebastian
`
`Claims 1 and 69 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Sebastian.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 14 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 14 of 53
`
`

`

`-15-
`
`Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`Claims 1 and 69 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 1 03(a) as being obvious over
`Sebastian in view of Realtime’s admissions.
`Claims 2-6, 8-9, 11, 17, 21-23, 41-43, 72-73, 79 and 81 are anticipated under 35
`U.S.C. § 102 by Sebastian.
`Claim 16 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Sebastian in view of:
`o O’Brien ‘998, or
`o Craft or ITU T81, or
`o ITU T263.
`Claim 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Sebastian in view of:
`© Franaszek, or
`o Reynar.
`Claims 27 and 39 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Sebastian in view
`of:
`
`o CCITT V.42 bis, or
`o Reynar.
`Claims 70, 71, 84-90, 96 and 98 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by
`Sebastian in view of:
`o CCITT V.42 dis, or
`o Kawashima.
`Claim 82 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Sebastian in view of
`McLean.
`Claim 86 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Sebastian in view of:
`o CCITT V.42 bis, or
`o Kawashima, further in view of Realtime’s admissions.
`
`4.
`
`Proposed rejections based on Franaszek
`
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Franaszek.
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`over Franaszek in view of Realtime’s admissions.
`Claims 2-7, 17, 20, 23, 27, 39, 41-43, 70-73, 79, 81, 82, 84-85, 87, 90, 96 and 98
`are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Franaszek.
`Claims 21 and 22 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Franaszek in view
`of:
`
`© Futato, or
`o Aakre.
`Claims 8 and 16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Franaszek in view
`of:
`
`00090
`
`ITUH.263, or
`ITU T.81, or
`O’Brien ‘946, or
`Craft.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 15 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 15 of 53
`
`

`

`-16-
`
`Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`J.
`
`Proposedrejections based on Lafe
`
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Lafe.
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 1 03(a) as being obvious
`over Lafe in view of Realtime’s admissions.
`Claims2, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 16-17, 20-23, 72-73, 79, 81, 89-90, 96 and 98 are
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Lafe.
`Claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in view of ITU
`T.81.
`Claims 7 and 41-43 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in view of:
`o Reynar, or
`o Wernikoff, or
`o Cellier, or
`© Franaszek.
`Claims 20 and 87 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in view of
`Kawashima.
`Claims 21 and 22 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in view of:
`© Futato, or
`o Aakre.
`Claims 27, 39, 70, 84, 85 and 88 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by
`Lafe in view of:
`o CCITT V.42 bis, or
`o Kawashima.
`o Claim 71 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in view of
`CCITT V.42 bis.
`Claim 71 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in view of CCITT
`V.42 bis.
`Claim 82 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in view of:
`o Simpson ACM,or
`Parallel Lossless ICBN,or
`Dye, or
`McLean,or
`ITU H.263.
`
`0000
`
`6.
`
`Proposed rejections based on Reynar
`
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Reynar.
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`over Reynar in view of Realtime’s admissions.
`Claims 2-7, 9, 11, 17, 21, 23, 27, 39, 41-42, 72-73, 79, 81, 82, 89-90 and 98 are
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Reynar.
`Claim 22 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Reynar in view of:
`o Futato, or
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 16 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 16 of 53
`
`

`

`-17-
`
`Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`o Aakre.
`s Claims 70, 71, 84-85 and 87-88 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by
`Reynar in view of:
`o CCITT V.42 bis, or
`o Kawashima.
`« Claims 8 and 16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in viewof:
`o ITU H.263, or
`o JITUT.81, or
`o O’Brien, or
`o Craft.
`e Claim 82 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Reynar in view of:
`o Simpson ACM,or
`o Parallel Lossless ICBN,or
`o Dye, or
`o McLean.
`
`a
`
`Summary ofReexamination before the CRU
`
`The Central Reexam Unit (CRU)granted the Request August 14, 2009, and on December
`
`15, 2009, issued a Non-Final Office Action (“Office Action”).
`
`Patent Owner replied to the Office Action (“Reply”) on March 15, 2010. The CRU
`
`issued an Action Closing Prosecution (“ACP”) on August 27, 2010, and Patent Ownertimely
`
`submitted a Response to the ACP (“Realtime’s Response to ACP”) on September 27, 2010. The
`
`CRUissued a Right of Appeal Notice (“RAN”) on January 6, 2011.
`
`Patent Owner timely filed its Notice of Appeal on February 7, 2011. Though it was
`
`entitled to appeal over the allowed claims, Requester did not file a notice of appeal or a notice of
`
`cross appeal in this case. Theissues on appeal are therefore limited to those presented by Patent
`
`Ownerin this appealbrief.
`
`C.
`
`The Problem to Be Solved by the Present Invention
`
`The ‘506 patent
`
`issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/668,768 (“the ‘768
`
`application”), which was a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/016,355 (“the ‘355
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 17 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1008, p. 17 of 53
`
`

`

`-18-
`
`Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`application”), filed on October 29, 2001, which was a continuation-in-part (CIP) of parent U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 09/705,466 (‘the ‘466 pare