`IPR2017-01660
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`(Declaration of Dr. Kenneth Zeger, previously
`filed in IPR2017-00557 as Exhibit 2003)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TERADATA OPERATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent No. 7,358,867
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF KENNETH A. ZEGER, PH.D., IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Realtime Ex. 2003
`Teradata v. Realtime
`IPR2017-00557
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Engagement ......................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Background and Qualifications ........................................................... 3
`
`II. Materials Considered ..................................................................................... 6
`
`III.
`
`Person Of Skill In The Art ............................................................................. 7
`
`IV. Petitioner’s Invalidity Theories Based on Hsu as a Primary Reference ........ 7
`
`V.
`
`Petitioner’s Invalidity Theories Based on Franaszek as a Primary
`Reference ..................................................................................................... 14
`
`VI. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`I, Kenneth A. Zeger, Ph.D., a resident of San Diego, California, declare as
`
`
`
`
`
`follows:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`A. Engagement
`
`I have been retained by Patent Owner Realtime Data LLC (“Realtime”
`
`or “Patent Owner”) through Zunda LLC to provide my opinions with respect to
`
`their Response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review in IPR2017-00557 (the
`
`“Petition”) as to U.S. Patent 7,358,867. Zunda LLC is being compensated for my
`
`time at the rate of $690 per hour for time spent on non-deposition tasks and for
`
`deposition time. I have no interest in the outcome of this proceeding and the
`
`payment of my fees is in no way contingent on my providing any particular
`
`opinions.
`
`
`
`As a part of this engagement, I have also been asked to provide my
`
`technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions regarding the Declaration of Dr.
`
`Charles D. Creusere (“Creusere Declaration,” Ex. 1002) with respect to challenged
`
`claims 16, 17, 18, 19, 32, 34, and 35, as well as the Petition, which relies on the
`
`Creusere Declaration.
`
`
`
`The statements made herein are based on my own knowledge and
`
`opinions.
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`I received a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and
`
`B.
`
`
`Computer Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1984.
`
`
`
`I received a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1984.
`
`
`
`I received a Master of Arts degree in Mathematics from the University
`
`of California, Santa Barbara, CA in 1989.
`
`
`
`I received a Ph.D. degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering
`
`from the University of California, Santa Barbara, CA in 1990.
`
`
`
`I am currently a Full Professor of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). I have held this
`
`position since 1998, having been promoted from Associated Professor after two
`
`years at UCSD. I have been an active member of the UCSD Center for Wireless
`
`Communications for 20 years. I teach courses full-time at UCSD in the fields of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering, and specifically in subfields including
`
`communications, information theory, and data compression at the undergraduate
`
`and graduate levels. Prior to my employment at UCSD, I taught and conducted
`
`research as a faculty member at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign for
`
`four years, and at the University of Hawaii for two years.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
` My twenty-plus years of industry experience includes consulting work
`
`
`
`
`
`for the United States Department of Defense as well as for private companies such
`
`as Xerox, Nokia, MITRE, ADP, and Hewlett-Packard. The topics upon which I
`
`provide consulting expertise include data communications for wireless networks,
`
`digital communications, information theory, computer software, and mathematical
`
`analyses.
`
`
`
`I have authored approximately 75 peer-reviewed journal articles, the
`
`majority of which are on the topic of communications, information theory, or
`
`signal processing. I have also authored over 110 papers at various conferences and
`
`symposia over the past thirty-plus years, such as the: IEEE International
`
`Conference on Communications; IEEE Radio and Wireless Symposium; Wireless
`
`Communications and Networking Conference; IEEE Global Telecommunications
`
`Conference; International Symposium on Network Coding; IEEE International
`
`Symposium on
`
`Information Theory; UCSD Conference on Wireless
`
`Communications; International Symposium on Information Theory and Its
`
`Applications; Conference on Advances in Communications and Control Systems;
`
`IEEE Communication Theory Workshop; Conference on Information Sciences and
`
`Systems; Allerton Conference on Communications, Control, and Computing;
`
`Information Theory and Its Applications Workshop; Asilomar Conference on
`
`Signals, Systems, and Computers. Roughly half of those papers relate to data
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`compression. I also am co-inventor on a US patent disclosing a memory saving
`
`
`
`
`
`technique for image compression.
`
`
`
`I was elected a Fellow of the IEEE in 2000, an honor bestowed upon
`
`only a small percentage of IEEE members. I was awarded the National Science
`
`Foundation Presidential Young Investigator Award in 1991, which included
`
`$500,000 in research funding. I received this award one year after receiving my
`
`Ph.D.
`
`
`
`I have served as an Associate Editor for the IEEE Transactions on
`
`Information Theory and have been an elected member of the IEEE Information
`
`Theory Board of Governors for three, three-year terms. I organized and have been
`
`on the technical advisory committees of numerous workshops and symposia in the
`
`areas of communications and information theory. I regularly review submitted
`
`journal manuscripts, government funding requests, conference proposals, student
`
`theses, and textbook proposals. I also have given many lectures at conferences,
`
`universities, and companies on topics in communications and information theory.
`
`
`
`I have extensive experience in electronics hardware and computer
`
`software, from academic studies, work experience, and supervising students. I
`
`personally program computers on an almost daily basis and have fluency in many
`
`different computer languages.
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
` My curriculum vitae, attached to this declaration as Exhibit A,
`
`
`
`
`
`(“Zeger Curriculum Vitae”), lists my publication record in archival journals,
`
`international conferences, and workshops.
`
`II. Materials Considered
`
`I have been asked to provide a technical review, analysis, insights, and
`
`opinions. My technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions are based on almost
`
`35 years of education, research, and experience, as well as my study of relevant
`
`materials.
`
`
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the ’867 Patent specification
`
`and claims. My understanding of the claims is based on the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the claims as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, unless the inventor has provided a special meaning for a term. My opinions set
`
`forth herein do not rest on a disagreement with Dr. Creusere as to the meaning of
`
`any claim term or limitation.
`
`
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and the Board’s Decision to
`
`Institute in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`I have reviewed the Declaration of Dr. Charles D. Creusere in this
`
`proceeding. I have also reviewed the Franaszek, Hsu, and Langdon references
`
`submitted by Petitioner in this proceeding, and am familiar with those references.
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`In addition, I have reviewed Dr. Creusere’s deposition testimony in this
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`proceeding.
`
` This declaration represents only opinions I have formed to date. I may
`
`consider additional documents as they become available or other documents that
`
`are necessary to form my opinions. I reserve the right to revise, supplement, or
`
`amend my opinions based on new information and on my continuing analysis.
`
`III. Person Of Skill In The Art
`
`I am familiar with the concept of the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSA”) and have reviewed Dr. Creusere and Petitioner’s views on the definition
`
`and qualifications of the POSA for purposes of this proceeding. I do not disagree
`
`with those views and have applied the same understandings in forming my
`
`opinions set forth herein.
`
` Throughout my declaration, even if I discuss my analysis in the
`
`present tense, I am always making my determinations based on what a POSA
`
`would have known at the time of the invention.
`
`IV. Petitioner’s Invalidity Theories Based on Hsu as a Primary Reference
`
`
`I understand that Dr. Creusere has offered an opinion that Hsu teaches
`
`all limitations of Independent Claim 16 of the ’867 Patent. See Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 90-
`
`106.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
` Limitation 16[B] of the ’867 patent recites “determining whether or
`
`not to compress each one of said plurality of data blocks with a particular one or
`
`more of several encoders.” I understand that, at his deposition, Dr. Creusere
`
`testified that the plain language of that limitation requires that the determination
`
`“not to compress” must be made with respect to particular encoders, and limitation
`
`16[B] cannot be met by a generalized determination to simply not compress at all:
`
`Limitation 16B requires that if a determination to compress is
`Q.
`made, the determination must be made with respect to a particular
`encoder or several particular encoders, true?
`A.
`The claim literally states that it is to determine whether or not
`to compress each one of said plurality of data blocks with a particular
`one or more of several encoders.
`
`So the statement you make is – appears to be literally true to
`me.
`Q. And limitation 16B also similarly requires the determination
`not to compress must be made with respect to a particular encoder or
`several particular encoders, right?
`A.
`It says “determination whether or not to compress,” so yes, that
`is correct.
`
`Ex. 2002 at 16:6-12.
`
`
`
`I also understand that, at his deposition, Dr. Creusere testified to the
`
`same understanding of the ’867 Patent’s teachings:
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`Q. In the ’867 patent, it is taught that the determination to not
`compress is made after a determination that none of several specific
`encoders would achieve a sufficiently high compression ratio with
`respect to a particular data block.
`Is that right?
`A. Yes, the ’867 patent first compresses the block with several
`encoders and then monitors how much compression was achieved.
`After having compressed the block, it decides, did we achieve enough
`compression? If the answer is no, it makes a determination not to
`compress.
`
`Ex. 2002 at 26:4-28:6.
`
`
`
`I agree with Dr. Creusere that the plain language of limitation 16[B]
`
`requires that a determination not to compress a data block must be made with
`
`respect to particular encoders and that a general determination not to compress the
`
`data block at all would not meet the requirements of limitation 16[B]. I also agree
`
`with Dr. Creusere that that understanding of limitation 16[B] is consistent with the
`
`teachings of the ’867 Patent. In other words, I agree with Dr. Creusere that the
`
`determination whether or not to compress must depend on the particular encoders
`
`being considered, and I agree that the method of claim 16 would allow two
`
`different sets of encoders to result in different determinations as to whether or not
`
`to compress the same data block. See Ex. 2002 at 26:4-28:6 (“If you were to
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`change out the set of encoders, you might fail with one set of encoders and you
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`might succeed with another set.”) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`I have reviewed Hsu, and I do not agree with Dr. Creusere’s opinion
`
`that Hsu teaches limitation 16[B]. See Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 92-96. In the portions of Hsu
`
`cited by Dr. Creusere, Hsu does not describe a determination not to compress a
`
`data block with respect to particular encoders; rather, Hsu describes a
`
`determination that a data block is “fully compressed” or “uncompressible” and
`
`should not be compressed at all. Id. at ¶ 96 (quoting Ex. 1005 at 1102, 1106).
`
` Specifically, Hsu describes a system that “treats a file as a collection
`
`of fixed size blocks (5K in the current implementation)” and that the
`
`“compressibility of each block of data is determined by the values of three
`
`quantitative metrics representing the alphabetic distribution, the average run length
`
`and the string repetition ratio in the file.” Ex. 1005 at 1102. Hsu provides formulas
`
`for computing each of the three metrics, see id. at 1105-06, and explains that they
`
`provide “a method of statistical analysis of the compressibility of a file (its
`
`redundancy types).” Id. at 1098.
`
` Hsu explains that if none of the three redundancy metrics have a value
`
`of greater than 2.5, then the data block “is considered fully compressed
`
`(uncompressible) and the program continues on to the next” data block. Id. at
`
`1102; see also id. at 1106 (“Experiments have also shown that if all the normalized
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`metrics are smaller than 2.5, the file is considered not compressible, and the
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`system records a verdict of ‘uncompressible’ on the current block.”) (emphasis
`
`added). In this way, Hsu expressly teaches that the three redundancy metrics are
`
`used as “absolute indicators of compressibility,” id. at 1102, and that they provide
`
`a determination as to whether a given fixed-sized block should be compressed or
`
`not compressed at all, without consideration of any particular encoder.
`
`
`
`I understand that Dr. Creusere testified that “[t]he not compression
`
`decision as laid out by Hsu is based entirely on the three redundancy metrics.” Ex.
`
`2002 at 102:24-103:1. I also understand that Dr. Creusere testified that the
`
`redundancy metrics themselves are not encoders:
`
`You agree that alphabetic distribution is not an encoder, right?
`A. Alphabetic distribution is not an encoder. It is simply a statistic that
`is indicative of how well certain encoders are likely to work.
`Q. An average run length is also not an encoder, right?
`A. Again, it is a statistic that is indicative of how a run-length encoder
`is likely to work.
`Q. String repetition ratio is also not an encoder. True?
`A. No, it is also a statistic that is indicative of how a class of encoders,
`Lempel-Ziv type encoders, are likely to work.
`
`Ex. 2002 at 52:19-53:9. I agree that Hsu’s determination not to compress is made
`
`solely with respect to the calculated redundancy metrics of a data block—which
`
`are not themselves encoders—and that Hsu’s determination does not consider the
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`particular encoders available in Hsu’s system. Rather, Hsu makes a determination
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`as to the data’s compressibility or uncompressibility—not a determination whether
`
`to compress with any particular encoder(s). Thus, if Hsu determined not to
`
`compress a segment, no changes could be made to Hsu’s encoders that would
`
`affect that determination. Even if different or additional encoders were included,
`
`Hsu would calculate the same three metrics for the block and thus would make the
`
`same compression determination. A POSA would not understand Hsu to contain
`
`any teaching that changes to Hsu’s encoders would affect the redundancy metrics
`
`calculated or the determination made from comparing those redundancy metrics
`
`against Hsu’s 2.5 threshold.
`
` Hsu is not the only way that a compression system could employ an
`
`encoder-independent decision not to compress that would not meet the
`
`requirements of limitation 16[B]. For example, a hypothetical compression system
`
`may make a determination not to compress particular types of data (e.g., audio) or
`
`data under a particular size threshold (e.g., 1 kilobyte). That determination may be
`
`implemented because the system designer anticipates that certain data types or
`
`block sizes are unlikely to benefit from applying compression. But unless the
`
`system makes a determination not to compress a data block with respect to a
`
`particular encoder, that system would not meet limitation 16[B].
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`
`
`I have reviewed Dr. Creusere’s deposition testimony, where he
`
`appears to assert a theory that the determination for each of Hsu’s three metrics is
`
`itself a determination with respect a particular encoder. See Ex. 2002 at 45:1-49:3.
`
`Specifically, although Dr. Creusere acknowledged that none of Hsu’s three metrics
`
`is itself an encoder, id. at 52:19-53:9, he argued that each of Hsu’s redundancy
`
`metrics is associated with certain compression algorithms, and that Hsu’s
`
`determination not to compress at all is a determination not to compress with those
`
`particular algorithms. See id. at 45:1-46:5, 47:10-49:14.
`
`
`
`I disagree with that theory. As I stated above, a POSA would not
`
`understand Hsu to teach that its determination not to compress based on
`
`redundancy metric was a determination not to compress with particular encoders.
`
`A POSA would understand that Hsu’s approach would yield the same
`
`determination not to compress regardless of the encoders available in the system,
`
`and that Hsu’s ultimate determination not to compress was a determination as to
`
`the data’s compressibility overall (i.e., that the data is “uncompressible”), and not
`
`with respect to any particular encoder.
`
` Accordingly, I disagree that Dr. Creusere has shown that Hsu teaches
`
`limitation 16[B].
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`Petitioner’s Invalidity Theories Based on Franaszek as a Primary
`Reference
`
`
`I understand that Dr. Creusere has offered an opinion that Independent
`
`Claim 16 of the ’867 Patent is obvious over Franaszek in view of Hsu. See Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶¶ 161-189. In particular, I understand that Dr. Creusere attempts to meet
`
`the “null data compression type descriptor” element of limitations 16[D2] and [D3]
`
`by proposing that it would have “been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to include the skip instruction or ‘no compression’ code of Hsu . . . in the CMD
`
`(compression method description) of Franaszek.” Id. at ¶ 188.
`
`
`
`I understand that Dr. Creusere testified that the original,
`
`uncompressed data blocks entering Franaszek’s system do not have a CMD area:
`
`Q. And the original data block in uncompressed form that comes
`into Franaszek’s system does not have a CMD area, right?
`A. No, it may have a type area. It may or may not, optionally, but it
`does not have a CMD area.
`
`Ex. 2002 at 70:3-8 (emphasis added); see also id. at 80:9-13 (“Uncompressed data
`
`blocks that are coming in to Franaszek, that are being received by Franaszek, do
`
`not have a CMD area[.]”). I also understand that he further confirmed that
`
`Franaszek does not include any teaching to add a CMD area to the uncompressed
`
`data block:
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`Q. And there is no specific teaching in Franaszek to add a CMD
`area to uncompressed data blocks. True?
`A. There is no teaching in Franaszek, but I nonetheless believe that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that it is
`necessary to do so.
`
`Id. at 81:14-21.
`
` While I disagree with Dr. Creusere that a POSA would have
`
`“understood that it is necessary” to add a CMD area to uncompressed data blocks, I
`
`agree with him that Franaszek does not teach a CMD area in its original
`
`uncompressed data blocks entering the system, nor does it teach adding a CMD
`
`area to those data blocks.
`
` Franaszek’s FIG. 2 (reproduced in part below), shows that
`
`uncompressed datablocks (210) may have optional type information (205), but
`
`only the compressed data blocks (230) output from the data compressor (220) have
`
`a CMD area (235):
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
` The corresponding portions of the specification further confirm that
`
`the CMD area is only part of compressed data blocks. See Franaszek at 4:30-31,
`
`55-59 (“[T]he uncompressed data blocks 210 that can optionally contain type
`
`information 205. . . . The compressor outputs compressed data blocks 230, with an
`
`index (M) 232 identifying the selected compression method, and for dictionary-
`
`based methods, dictionary block identifier (D), encoded in a compression method
`
`description (CMD) area 235 in the compressed blocks.”).
`
` Similarly, Franaszek uniformly shows that processing completes on
`
`the original uncompressed data blocks without storing information in a CMD area.
`
`For example, FIG. 3 depicts the overall structure of the data compressor:1
`
`
`1 I believe FIG. 3 contains a typographical error. Specifically, a POSA
`
`viewing FIG. 3 in light of the specification would understand that the label at step
`
`320 should read “TEST EACH METHOD.” See id. at 5:18-20 (“[I]n block 320,
`
`each method or (method, dictionary) pair is tested on a sample taken from the
`
`uncompressed data block 205[.]” (emphasis added)).
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`
`
`As shown in the FIG. 3, an uncompressed data block 210 enters the system, and
`
`various compression methods are tested on a sample from the block in step 320. Id.
`
`at 18-29. After performing those tests, Franaszek checks whether the “best” sample
`
`compression satisfies a threshold compression ratio. Franaszek explains that, “[i]f
`
`the best sample compression does not satisfy a threshold condition (e.g., 30%
`
`compression as compared to the uncompressed sample), then it is decided at this
`
`point not to compress the block as indicated by 335.” Id. at 5:29-32.
`
` The decision not to compress at step 335 causes an immediate exit
`
`from the data compressor 220 and “the block will be stored in uncompressed
`
`format.” Id. at 5:32-33. FIG. 3 does not depict any addition of a CMD area to the
`
`uncompressed data block or other steps taken to set information in a CMD area
`
`before step 335. Only later, for blocks that proceed to compression at step 340,
`
`does the system generate a compressed data block and store information in its
`
`CMD area. Id. at 5:33-37.
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
` FIGS. 4B and 4C (both reproduced in annotated form below) further
`
`illustrate the principle that Franaszek’s CMD areas are added only to compressed
`
`data blocks:
`
`
`
`
`
` FIG. 4B shows that the evaluation of the compression threshold
`
`occurs at step 457 and that the decision not to compress the input data block (B)
`
`terminates the process as to that data block at step 459. See also id. at 6:41-42 (“If
`
`step 457 determines that CRTT(Q) [the smallest compressed length of the sample
`
`data] is not sufficiently small, in step 459 the data block B is not compressed.”).
`
`Before the termination of the process at step 459, Franaszek has not described
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`
`
`making any modifications to the original uncompressed input data block B, let
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`alone to add a CMD area.
`
` On the contrary, the original data block B is only modified when the
`
`compression threshold is met at the evaluation of step 457 and the process
`
`continues to the compression steps depicted in FIG. 4C. See id. at 6:43-50
`
`(describing the operations of steps 461 through 475 “if step 457 determines that
`
`CRTT(Q) is sufficiently small”). Depending on the type of encoder chosen, the
`
`original data block B is encoded to produce compressed data block B` at either step
`
`467 or 470. Id. And the step of storing the coding identifier in the CMD area of B`
`
`only occurs as the penultimate step 475 of the compression sequence illustrated in
`
`FIG. 4C. See also id. at 6:47-50 (“Next, in step [475], E [the compression method]
`
`is recorded in the CMD (compression method description) prefix area of the
`
`compressed block (B`), and the resulting block B` is output.”).
`
` Thus, a data block (B) that fails the threshold evaluation at step 457
`
`will exit the process at step 459 without being modified—i.e., a compressed data
`
`block (B`) will never be created (in steps 467 or 470) nor will the process reach
`
`step 475 where a coding identifier is stored in the CMD area of the compressed
`
`data block (B`).
`
` Accordingly, Franaszek does not describe a CMD area where coding
`
`information could be stored in data blocks that it determines not to compress.
`
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`
`
`I understand that, notwithstanding the teachings of Franaszek
`
`described above, Dr. Creusere has urged that uncompressed data blocks must
`
`include a CMD area. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 at 80:21-81:4 (“I feel that that [CMD] area
`
`is already there and that it has to be there and that there has to be a no compression
`
`code in that area. I think a person of ordinary skill in the art would feel the same
`
`way because they would know that it would be necessary for the decoder to be able
`
`to decode the stream, bit stream output by Franaszek's encoder.”). At his
`
`deposition, Dr. Creusere asserted that if compressed blocks were sent with a CMD
`
`area and uncompressed blocks did not include a CMD area, “then the decoder,
`
`which is reading these things on a b[y]te-by-b[y]te basis, would not know” which
`
`blocks were compressed blocks and which were uncompressed blocks, and that
`
`could lead the decoder to “randomly decodes the next [uncompressed] block as
`
`though it had been compressed with something.” Id. at 71:24-73:14.
`
`
`
`I disagree with Dr. Creusere that a CMD area in uncompressed data
`
`blocks would be “necessary for the decoder to be able to decode the stream.” Id. at
`
`81:2-3. To the contrary, a POSA would understand that the system of Franaszek
`
`could be implemented without adding a CMD area to uncompressed data blocks by
`
`making the CMD area for compressed data blocks sufficiently long. Specifically, a
`
`CMD area of N bits allows for 2N possible combinations of coding identifiers. In a
`
`system with C coding identifiers, where each coding identifier is a unique (and
`
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`
`
`possibly randomly-selected) string of 2N bits, the odds of a decoder confusing the
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`first N bits of an uncompressed data block with the CMD area of a compressed
`
`data block is 1 in !"# . So for example, in a system with a 256-bit CMD area and 10
`
`encoders, the odds of confusing the decoder—i.e., by having an uncompressed data
`
`block beginning with a sequence of 256 bits that matches a valid coding
`
`identifier—would be 1 in !$%&’( , or approximately 1 in 1076, which is comparable to
`
`the number of atoms in the known universe.2 A POSA would expect such a system
`
`to operate correctly with no real-world risk of decoding errors. In other words, a
`
`zero probability of decoding error, thus perfect decoding.
`
` Accordingly, I do not believe a POSA would understand the system
`
`taught by Franaszek to require that a CMD area be added to uncompressed data
`
`blocks.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 See https://www.universetoday.com/36302/atoms-in-the-universe/ (“[I]t is
`
`estimated that the there are between 1078 to 1082 atoms in the known, observable
`
`universe. In layman’s terms, that works out to between ten quadrillion vigintillion
`
`and one-hundred thousand quadrillion vigintillion atoms.”)
`
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`VI. Conclusion
`
`In signing this declaration, I understand that the Declaration will be
`
`filed as evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I acknowledge that I may be
`
`subject to cross-examination in these cases and that cross examination will take
`
`place within the United States. If cross examination is required of me, I will appear
`
`for cross examination within the United States during the time allotted for cross
`
`examination.
`
`
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true;
`
`and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and that such willful
`
`false statements may jeopardize the validity of the ʼ867 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Executed on September 26, 2017 in San Diego, California.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kenneth A. Zeger, Ph.D.
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`Kenneth A. Zeger
`
`- Professor and consultant -
`
`January 8, 2017
`
`Personal Data
`
`Email: zeger@ZundaLLC.com
`Web: http://ZundaLLC.com (company)
`http://zeger.us (university)
`Citizenship: USA
`
`Academic Degrees
`
`Ph.D (ECE):
`University of California, Santa Barbara (1990)
`M.A. (Mathematics): University of California, Santa Barbara (1989)
`S.M. (EECS):
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1984)
`S.B.
`(EECS):
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1984)
`
`Faculty Positions
`
`University of California, San Diego
`
`Professor of Electrical Engineering (1998-present)
`-
`- Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering (1996-1998)
`
`University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign - Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering (1995-1996)
`- Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering (1992-1995)
`
`University of Hawaii
`
`- Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering (1990-1992)
`
`Honors and Awards
`
`• IEEE Fellow (2000)
`• NSF Presidential Young Investigator Award (1991)
`• United States Mathematical Olympiad (1980)
`
`Page 1 of 21
`
`CV of K. Zeger
`
`
`
`Consulting Experience
`
`January 8, 2017
`
`Clients:
`
`• Automatic Data Processing Co.
`• Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
`• U.S. Department of Defense
`• MITRE Co.
`• Nokia Telecommunications Inc.
`• Prominent Communications Inc. (Chair of Technical Advisory Board)
`• ViaSat Inc.
`• Xerox Co. Palo Alto Research Center
`• Zeger-Abrams Inc.
`• Zunda LLC (President)
`• Expert Witness in numerous patent infringement and trade secret litigations.
`
`Topics:
`
`• Image, fax, video, vision, television coding.
`• Speech coding and recognition, audio coding, telephony.
`• Electronic hardware devices: cell phones, printers, cameras, TV, computers, dongles, etc.
`• Protocols, networks, Internet, security, GPS.
`• Digital and wireless communications.
`• Error correcting codes.
`• Communication protocols.
`• Software: C, C++, C#, BASIC, Lisp, Fortran, Cobol, Algol, Pascal, Assembler, TMS320, Java,
`DSP, Verilog, HTML, JavaScript, Perl, Visual Basic, VHDL.
`• National security topics.
`
`Page 2 of 21
`
`CV of K. Zeger
`
`
`
`Professional Activities
`
`January 8, 2017
`
`• Board of Governors of IEEE Information Theory Society (1998-2000, 2005-2007, and 2008-
`2010)
`• Associate Editor At-Large of IEEE Transactions on Information Theory (1995-1998).
`• Steering Committee member of Fourth Workshop on Network Coding, Theory, and Applications
`(2007).
`• Co-organizer of: Third Workshop on Network Coding, Theory, and Applications, San Diego
`(2007).
`• Co-organizer of NSF Workshop on Joint Source-Channel Coding, San Diego, California. (1999)
`• Co-organizer of IEEE Information Theory Workshop, San Diego, California. (1998)
`• Co-organizer of Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (1995)
`• Co-organizer of IEEE Communication Theory Workshop, Ojai, California. (1990)
`• International Advis