NETAPP V. REALTIME
`IPR2017-01660
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`(Declaration of Dr. Kenneth Zeger, previously
`filed in IPR2017-00557 as Exhibit 2003)
`
`
`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
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
