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