IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Reexam of US. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`Confirmation No: 2572
`
`FALLON, James J.
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Control No.: 95/000,479
`
`Examiner: LEUNG, Christina Y.
`
`Filed: May 28, 2009
`
`Atty. Docket: 2855.002REX3
`
`Realtime’s Appeal Brief Under 37 C.F.R.
`
`41.6”?
`
`Mail Stop “Inter Partes Reexam”
`Attn: Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`PO Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313—1450
`
`Sir:
`
`For: SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR
`DATA CGMFRESSION SUCH AS
`CONTENT DEPENDENT DATA
`COMPRESSION
`
`charged to the undersigned’s Deposit Account No. 19—0036.
`
`Pursuant to the Right of Appeal Notice mailed on January 6, 2011, Realtime Data, LLC,
`
`(herein “Patent Owner”),
`
`in the above-captioned inter partes reexamination involving US.
`
`Patent No. 7,161,506 (“the ‘506 Patent”), timely filed its Notice of Appeal on February 7, 2011,
`
`from the final rejection ofclaims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 20-23, 27, 39, 43, 69-73, 79, 81, 82, 84-90, 96
`
`and 98. The third-party requester, Blue Coat Systems, Inc., did not file a notice of cross-appeal,
`
`though it had the ability to do so based on its proposed rejections regarding the LBX, French,
`
`Sebastian, Franaszek, Lafe, and Reynar references that were not adopted.
`
`(RAN at 6-8.) This
`
`appeal is therefore limited to issues raised herein. Patent Owner’s appeal brief is due on April
`
`21, 2011, (see 37 C.F.R. §41.66(a)).
`
`Patent Owner hereby timely files one electronic copy of this Appeal Brief, together with
`
`the required fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 41.20(b)(2). If additional fees are necessary to prevent
`
`abandonment of this appeal, then any such fees required therefore are hereby authorized to be
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 001
`
`

`

`Reexam of US. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Real Party in Interest ......................................................................................................... .. 5
`Relath Appeals and Interferences .................................................................................... .. 5
`Status of Claims ................................................................................................................ .. 8
`Status of Amendments ...................................................................................................... .. 9
`
`Summary of Claimed Subject Matter ............................................................................... .. 9
`A.
`Independent Claim 1 ............................................................................................. .. 9
`B.
`Independent Claim 69 ......................................................................................... .. 10
`C.
`Independent Claim 86 ......................................................................................... .. 11
`Issues to Be Reviewed on Appeal ................................................................................... .. 12
`A.
`Ground 1 — Anticipation by US. Patent No. 6,253,264 to Sebastian (“Sebastian”)
`............................................................................................................................. .. 12
`
`B.
`
`C
`
`Ground 2 — Anticipation by US. Patent No. 5,870,036 to Franaszek (“Franaszek”)
`............................................................................................................................. .. 12
`Ground 3 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in view of Franaszek or US. Patent No.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`5,951,623 to Reynar (“Reynar”) ......................................................................... .. 12
`Ground 4 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in view of “Data Compression
`Procedures for Data Circuit Terminating Equipment Using Error Correction
`Procedures,” CCITT Recommendation V.42 bis, 1990, (“CCITT V.42 bis”) or
`Reynar ................................................................................................................. .. 12
`Ground 5 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in View of US. Patent No. 5,167,034 to
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`Summary of the Reexamination before the Central Reexamination Unit .......... .. 13
`1.
`Proposed rejections based on LBX (Low Bandwidth X Extension,
`Protocol Version 1.0, X Consortium Standard) ...................................... .. 14
`Proposed rejections based on French ...................................................... .. 14
`Proposed rejections based on Sebastian .................................................. .. 14
`Proposed rejections based on Franaszek ................................................. .. 15
`Proposed rejections based on Lafe .......................................................... .. 16
`Proposed rejections based on Reynar ..................................................... .. 16
`.
`Summary of Reexamination before the CRU ......................................... .. 17
`.
`The Problem to Be Solved by the Present Invention .......................................... .. 17
`Use of the Term “Analyzing” in the Specification ............................................. .. 18
`1.
`Patent Owner is Allowed to be his Own Lexicographer......................... .. 18
`2.
`Patent Owner has Provided a Definition of “Analyzing” ....................... .. l9
`3.
`Dr. Modestino’s Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 .......................... .. 23
`4.
`The CRU Has Misconstrued the Meaning of “Analyze” ........................ .. 24
`5.
`The CRU Did Not Properly Consider Modestino’s Declaration ............ .. 25
`Grounds 1 and 2—Rejections of Claims 69, 70, 72, 73, 79, 81, 82, 84 and 85
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Franaszek and Claims 1-5, 8, 9, ll, 17, 21-23, 43,
`69, 72, 73, 79 and 81 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(6) over Sebastian ........................ .. 26
`
`F.
`
`MacLean (“MacLean”) ....................................................................................... .. 12
`Ground 6 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in View of International Application WO
`95/29437 to Kawashima (“Kawashima”) ........................................................... .. l3
`Argument ........................................................................................................................ .. 13
`A.
`Standard of Review ............................................................................................. .. 13
`B.
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 002
`
`

`

`- 3 -
`
`Reexam of US. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`Overview of Rejections ........................................................................... .. 26
`Franaszek does not Disclose “Analyzing a Data Block” to “Identify One
`or More Data Types of the Data Block,” or “Analyzing said Data Block to
`Determine a Type of said Data Block” ................................................... .. 26
`Sebastian does not disclose “Analyzing a Data Block” to “Identify One or
`More Data Types of the Data Block,” or “Analyzing said Data Block to
`Determine a Type of said Data Block” ................................................... .. 30
`Conclusion .............................................................................................. .. 32
`
`4.
`
`Ground 3 i Rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over Sebastian in
`View of Franaszek or Reynar .............................................................................. .. 33
`1.
`Overview of Rejection ............................................................................ .. 33
`2.
`Sebastian in View of Franaszek or Reynar does not disclose “Analyzing a
`Data Block of an Input Data Stream to Identify One or More Data Types
`of the Data Block” .................................................................................. .. 33
`Conclusion .............................................................................................. .. 33
`
`3.
`
`Ground 4 — Rejection of claims 27 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over
`Sebastian in View of CCITT V.42 his or Reynar ................................................ .. 34
`1.
`Overview of Rejection ............................................................................ .. 34
`2.
`Sebastian in View of CCITT V.42 his or Reynar does not disclose
`“Analyzing a Data Block of an Input Data Stream to Identify One or More
`Data Types of the Data Block” ............................................................... .. 34
`Conclusion .............................................................................................. .. 35
`
`3.
`
`Ground 5 — Rejection of claim 82 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over Sebastian in
`View of MacLean ................................................................................................ .. 35
`
`1.
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Overview of Rejection ............................................................................ .. 35
`Sebastian in view of MacLean does not disclose “Analyzing said Data
`Block to Determine a Type of said Data Block” .................................... .. 35
`Conclusion .............................................................................................. .. 3 6
`
`Ground 6 — Rejection of claims 70, 71, 84-90, 96 and 98 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`Over Sebastian in View of Kawashima ............................................................... .. 36
`
`Atty. Dkt. N0. 2855.002REX3
`
`Regarding claims 86-90, 96 and 98, Sebastian in View of Kawashima does
`not Disclose “Determining Whether to Output said Data Block in
`Received Form or in a Compressed Form” or “Determining Whether to
`Compress Said Data Block with Content Dependent Data Compression
`Based on the Type of Said Data Block” ................................................. .. 37
`A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Not Combine Sebastian and
`Kawashima .............................................................................................. .. 3 8
`Conclusion .............................................................................................. .. 42
`
`Overview of Rejection ............................................................................ .. 36
`Regarding claims 70, 71, 84 and 85, Sebastian in View of Kawashima does
`not disclose “Analyzing said Data Block to Determine a Type of said Data
`Block” ..................................................................................................... .. 36
`
`1.
`2.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`J.
`
`Conclusion .......................................................................................................... .. 43
`
`Claims Appendix ............................................................................................................ .. 44
`Evidence Appendix ......................................................................................................... .. 52
`Related Proceedings Appendix ....................................................................................... .. 53
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 003
`
`

`

`XI.
`
`Reaxam 0H} Patant N0. 7,} 61,506
`Central N0. 95/009947?)
`
`Certificate of Service ...................................................................................................... .. 54
`
`Atty. Dkt. N0. 2855.002REX3
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 004
`
`

`

`1 i1l
`
`6,601,104 .System and Methods for Accelerate _Dcision affirming
`.
`Examiner’s rejections
`Data Storage and Retrieval
`mailegl__3\/_1§/17,1",
`,7
`Content Independent Data Compression Notice of Appeal
`Method and System
`filed 2/7/2011,
`Appeal Brief filed
`"in.i.fl%l/ZQ.L1
`
`Real Party in Interest
`
`The real party in interest in this principal brief on appeal is the patent owner Realtime
`
`Data LLC, (Patent Owner). The Patent Owner is the assignec of record for the patent under
`
`reexamination, US. Patent No. 7,161,506 (“the ‘506 patent”), attached as Exhibit A. The
`
`original assignment for the priority filing for the ‘506 patent was recorded with the United States
`
`Patent & Trademark Office on August 10, 2010 at reel 024812, frame 0268. The oréginal
`
`assignment establishing Patent Owner’s ownership of the ‘506 patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 8,
`
`II.
`
`Related Appeals and Interferences
`
`All prior and pending appeals, interferences or judicial proceedings known to Patent
`
`Owner, Patent Owner’s legal representatives, or assignee that may be related to, directly affect or
`
`be directly affected by or have a bearing on the Board’s decision in the pending appeal are listed
`
`below. In addition, a summary of related Appeal Briefs for Reexam control numbers 95/000,464
`
`and 95/000,478 is also presented below.
`
`Reexaminations
`
`3 90/009,428 k
`5
`5
`
`/000,464 ‘ 6,624,761
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 005
`
`

`

`7,417,568 System And Method For Data ' Feed} IPR Filed
`Acceleration And Encryption
`E 01/31/2011, filing
`date of 31.1111a519t94a
`System And Method For Data Feed Decision to grant and
`Acceleration And Encryption
`non-final office
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`95/001,5
`
`7,777,651
`
`Eitigation
`
`1
`
`3
`
`Realtime Data LLC d/b/a/ LXO v. Metropcs Texas, LLC,
`
`1 Pending
`
`j Rea/time Data LLC d/b/a/ [X0 v. CME Group Inc, et
`
`Pending
`
`.
`
`Realtime Data LLC d/b/a/ 1X00. Thomson Reuters
`Corporation et al., No. 6:10-CV-00425-LED (ED.
`
`Pending
`
`4
`
`Realtime Data LLC d/b/a/ IXO v. Morgan Stanley et al.,
`
`Realtime ~Data LLC d/b/a/ 1X0 v. Packeteer, Inc. et al.,
`N0.:__§E,Q§:EX:99_1fi:l:§9.£§:2;l§§as)
`Rea/time Data LLC d/b/a/ LXO v. Thomson Reuters
`
`‘
`,
`
`Dismissed
`
`Reexam of US. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`Data Storage and Retrieval
`
`10/26/2010,
`g Petition to terminate
`reexam denied
`
`Content Independent Data Compression Notice of Appeal
`Method and System
`filed 2/7/2011,
`‘
`g Appeal Brief filed
`
`'
`
`g
`
`System and Methods for Accelerated EOT Granted 3/29/11
`"WAN
`
`Data Compression Systems and Methods Order Granting
`1 Request for Inter
`Pates Reexamination
`
`‘
`
`si
`
`i
`
`5
`
`System And Method For Data Feed 5 IPR Filed 3/21/2011,
`Acceleration And Encryption
`i‘ Notice of Assignment
`and Filing Date
`issued
`
`95/000,466 1
`
`95/000,478
`
`7,378,992
`
`95/000,486
`
`6,604,158
`
`95/001,517
`
`7,714,747
`
`“,WWWM ,
`
`‘ 95/001,533
`
`95/001,544
`
`7,400,274
`
`1
`
`tt
`
`'
`
`i
`
`i i
`
`=
`
`E
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 006
`
`

`

`Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`Realiime Dam LLC (Mi/w“ 1X0 v. Morgan Stanley 61513.,
`
`Pending
`
`8
`
`Reaitime Dara LLC d/b/cr/LXO v. CME Gmup 13:43., 81'
`
`E Pending
`
`i (l’lzicaga Beard Optimis Exchange, Ina, v. Realzime
`£19géléélgiézfa/LQSO»
`Momma Reuters (L‘arporazion v. Reaffime Data, LLC
`
`11 Realtime Data, LLC Wit/2:1 113370 125 CME Group Inc., at
`7 a2. {7})? No. 6:10—cv~246 (ND. Texas filed May 11,
`
`a
`
`Dismissed
`
`3
`‘
`
`
`
`12 Reaitime Data madam/1m v. Thomson Reuters
`(l’orpamtian et a1.
`(11?“ No, 6:10—CV—247 (ND. Texas
`Max} 1.2 193
`geagsme‘aaa
`l a3. (7])? Not 6;10~cv~248 (NJ) Texas filed May 113
`29a:
`
`Atty. Dkt. N0. 2855.002REX3
`
`Aggeal Brief Summasw
`
`The following related three cases are currently on appeal to the Board.
`
`Reference/
`
`/Claims
`
`Raexam # asimiéikm Reexam # 95/00fi,479 Remain # aeiéfiiéjiié’“?
`Pat, No. 6,624,761
`Pat. No. 7451,5615
`PM. Na 7,373,992
`zaammzmszxz
`zgsseezaam
`zasmmmam
`
`' Franaszek
`'
`
`1—3 and 7"“ '
`
`69, 70, 72, 73, 79, a},
`3:2, 34 and 85
`
`1, 3, 75 9,
`20, .21, 26, 28 and 32
`
`
`i (RAN aE7)
`: 1-3 and 7
`3
`
`Sebastian
`
`815"?)
`1—5, 8,, 9911,17, 21v
`23, 43, 69, 72, 737 79
`and $1
`
`WW
`(RAN 33:7)
`1245,18, 20, 212m
`26
`
`§RAN LEAN 06:)
`17 and21
`
`(RAN ‘13)
`
`Park in View of
`
`17 and 21
`
`Whiting
`
`(RAN $31 0)
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 007
`
`

`

`Reexam 0fU.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`Reference/ “
`
`N?REE§§EI§9S/Ofi0,464 Reexam # 95/000,479
`Pat. No. 7,161,506
`Pat. No. 6,624,761
`2855.002REX3
`2855.002REX2
`
`lClaims
`
`Re‘eiéiE‘FiiEiEiifiEiW
`Pat. No. 7,378,992
`2855.002REX5
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`1 Though entitled to do so, Third Party Requester did not cross-appeal Examiner’s finding
`of patentability of these claims.
`
`,
`
`20
`
`(RAN ‘38}
`27 and 39
`
`___(RAN 99}
`82
`
`,ll
`
`(RAN {ll 10)
`a 70, 71, 84—90, 96 and
`<985k
`
`(RAN 9:113
`
`33 and 36
`
`112)
`33"and 36
`
`(RAN ‘
`
`10, 19, 27 and29
`
`I
`
`(RAN 910)
`27
`
`XBAN 711),.“
`
`Seroussi in View of
`
`17 and 21
`
`Whiting
`
`Sebastian in View
`of Franaszek or
`
`Reynar
`Sebastian in View
`of CCITT V.42 or
`
`Reynar
`Sebastian in View
`of MacLean
`
`Sebastian in View
`of Kawashima
`
`French
`
`,4 Franaszek in View
`of Montville or
`Rao
`Sebastian in View
`of Montville or
`Rao
`
`III.
`
`Status of Claims
`
`Claims 1—9, 11, l6, 17, 20-23, 27, 39, 41—43, 69-73, 79, 81, 82, 84-90, 96 and 98 of the
`
`‘506 patent are currently pending and subject to reexamination. Claims 1, 69 and 86 are
`
`independent claims. The Examiner found claims 6, 7, 16, 41 and 42 to be patentable.1 Claims 1-
`
`5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 20-23, 27, 39, 43, 69-73, 79, 81, 82, 84-90, 96 and 98 currently stand rejected.
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 008
`
`

`

`- 9 -
`
`Reexam ofU.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`Patent Owner appeals all of the rejections of each of claims LS, 8, ‘1}, it, 17, 20—23, 2.7, 39, 43,
`
`69—73, 79, 81, 82, 84-90, 96 and 98.
`
`114
`
`Status efAmen(intents
`
`E’atent Owner has not filed. any amendments to the claims or the specificatien.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`2423-8; Figure 14A—D,
`#1400-#1448; Figures
`3 16A-D, #1600-#1648;
`3 Figures 18A-D, #1800-
`;#1850
`.........................
`analyzing a data block of an input data stream to identify one or more Abstract; 18:21-34;
`data types of the data block, I
`_ 21:15-26; 24:21
`
`V.
`
`Summary of Claimed Subject Matter
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`Claim 1 is directed towards a method of data for compressing data based on an analysis
`
`of data blocks including content independent data compression and content dependent data
`
`compression.
`
`If a data type of the data block is identified then content dependent data
`
`compression is performed. If the data type is not identified then data compression with a single
`
`data compression encoder is performed. Support for claim 1
`
`in the specification of the ‘506
`
`patent is listed in the following table. However, every instance where the claim term, element, or
`
`limitation is described in the specification is not listed, as such citation is not required and would
`
`be inefficient. These exemplary citations are not an admission or disclaimer of patent scope.
`
`me od or compressing data, comprising the steps 0 .
`
`-6 ,
`.
`,
`A s
`18:15-18; 21:11-14;
`
`.
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 009
`
`

`

`Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`.
`
`Abstract; 18:21—34;
`the input data stream comprising a plurality of disparate data types;
`.
`.
`.
`.,
`.............................. i596; 2429-21
`performing content dependent data compression; if a data type of the
`18:29-42; 22:24-29;
`....................... ..
`2522-28
`performing data compression with a single data compression encoder,
`18:34—39; 21 :25—28;
`if a data type of the data block is not identified.
`24:21—24
`
`B.
`
`Independent Claim 69
`
`Claim 69 is directed towards a method of data compression including receiving an
`
`uncompressed data block and analyzing the data block to determine a data type of the data block.
`
`If an encoder is associated with the type of identified data then that encoder is used, if the
`
`encoder is not associated with the type of data, then a different encoder is used. Support for
`
`claim 69 in the specification of the ‘506 patent is listed in the following table. However, every
`
`instance where the claim term, element, or limitation is described in the specification is not
`
`listed, as such citation is not required and would be inefficient. These exemplary citations are
`
`not an admission or disclaimer of patent scope.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`. rrr . .,
`. rrr .
`. rrr .
`. ... .
`. ... .
`. ... .
`. ... .
`... .
`. ...
`..
`3 receiving a data block in an uncompressed form, said data block 6:58-59; 14:54-57;
`‘ being included in a data stream;
`15:28—30; 1629-11
`analyzing said data block to determine a type of said data block; and
`21315'26; 29' .................... ..
`w, .
`18:29-42;22:24-29;
`Scompressinsi aalo to provide arcompressed data block,
`25:22-28
`' wherein if one or more encoders are associated to said tpe,
`_
`compressing said data block with at least one of said one ore - 18:29-42; 22:24—29;
`. encoders,
`I
`77
`77
`r
`25:22-28
`
`A metho comprising:
`
`_
`
`bstract; 3:49-61;
`18:15-18; 21:11-14;
`24:3—8; Figure 14A-D,
`#1400—#1448; Figures
`E 16A-D, #1600-#1648;
`Figures ISA—D, #1800-
`
`.
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 010
`
`

`

`Reexam ofU.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`with a data compression encoder.
`
`I 182734—39;
`3
`' 4121—2
`
`1 :25—28;
`
`C.
`
`Independent Claim 86
`
`Claim 86 is directed towards a method of data compression including receiving a data
`
`block and determining, based on analysis of the data, whether to output the data block in
`
`received form or a compressed form. Support for claim 86 in the specification of the ‘506 patent
`
`is listed in the following table. However, every instance where the claim term, element, or
`
`limitation is described in the specification is not listed, as such citation is not required and would
`
`be inefficient. These exemplary citations are not an admission or disclaimer of patent scope.
`
`3
`
`I
`
`’
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`. ... ..
`. ... ,
`. ... .
`. ... .
`. .
`receiving a data block, wherein said data bleak is included in a data
`3 stream;
`...............i.
`determining whether to output said data hiock in received form or in a Figure 101). #1 28-i‘r‘140;
`compressed form; and
`Figure 12, #1205~#1214;
`. ... .
`. ii
`. ... .
`. ... .
`... .
`. ... ,
`. iii ,
`. .ii ,
`it
`.
`i 1
`outputting said data block in received form or said compressed form
`Figure 1%, #132 and
`based on said determination, wherein outputting said data block in
`#140; Figure 1.2., #1208
`said compressed fem comprises determining whether t0 compress
`and #1214; 13:29-42;
`said data bieci; with content dependent data compression based on the
`22:24~29; 25:22—28;
`type of said data block or to compress said data block with a single
`18:34~39; 21:25—28;
`data eempression encoder.
`34:21~'14
`
`A method comprising:
`
`3 Abstract; 3:49—61;
`318:15-18; 21: i 144;
`‘ 24:3»8; Figure ldA—D,
`#1400»#1443; Figures
`: MAJ}, #1600-if1648;
`Figures lSAvD, #1800~
`i E
`:58—39; 14:54-57;
`
`.
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 011
`
`

`

`Reexam ofU.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`Issues to Be Reviewed on Appeal
`
`Six grounds of rejection remain in this reexamination proceeding.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`Ground 4 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in view of “Data Compression
`Procedures for Data Circuit Terminating Equipment Using Error Correction
`Procedures,” CCITT Recommendation V.42 bis, 1990, (“CCITT V.42 bis”) or
`Reynar
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1 — Anticipation by US. Patent No. 6,253,264 to Sebastian
`(“Sebastian ”)
`
`Whether claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 21-23, 43, 69, 72, 73, 79 and 81 were rejected properly
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(c) as being anticipated by Sebastian.
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2 — Anticipation by US. Patent No. 5,870,036 to Franaszek
`(“Franaszek ”)
`
`Whether claims 69, 70, 72, 73, 79, 81, 82, 84 and 85 were rejected properly under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Franaszek.
`
`C,
`
`Ground 3 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in view of Franaszek or US. Patent
`No. 5,951,623 to Reynar (“Reynar”)
`
`Whether claim 20 was rejected properly under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`
`Sebastian in View of Franaszek or Reynar.
`
`,3}.
`
`Whether claims 27 and 39 were rejected properly under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvéous
`
`over Sebastian in View of CCITT V.42 bis or Reynar.
`
`E,
`
`Ground 5 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in view of US. Patent No. 5,167,034 to
`MacLean (“MacLean”)
`
`Whether claim 82 was rejected properly under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`
`Sebastian in View of MacLean.
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 012
`
`

`

`- 13 -
`
`Reexam of US. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`E
`
`Whether claims 70, 71, 84-90, 96 and 98 was rejected properly under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`as obvious over Sebastian in view of Kawashima.
`
`Ground 6 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in view of International Application
`W0 95/2943 7 to Kawashima (“Kawashima ”)
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`VII. Argument
`
`A.
`
`Standard ofReview
`
`The Examiner determines patentability “on the totality of the record, by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence.” Ex parte Frye, Appeal No. 2009-6013, at *8-9 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 26, 2010)
`
`(precedential opinion). The Board reviews the Examiner’s rejections “for error based upon the
`
`issues identified by appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon.” Id.
`
`Further, the Board “reviews particular finding(s) contested by an appellant anew in light of all
`
`the evidence and argument on that issue.” Id. at *10. The Office bears the burden of showing
`
`that the claims are unpatentable. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`Therefore, the Examiner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the rejected
`
`claims in the ‘506 patent are unpatentable over the cited art. Because the preponderance of the
`
`evidence favors Patent Owner’s positions, the rejections should be reversed and the challenged
`
`claims confirmed.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Reexamination before the Central Reexamination Unit
`
`Requester set forth six alleged substantial new questions of patentability (“SNQS”) over
`
`eight references on May 28, 2009. Commensurate with the alleged SNQs, Requester proposed
`
`the following rejections:
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 013
`
`

`

`--
`
`l 4- ~
`
`Reexam of US. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`Proposed rejections based on LBX (Low Bandwidth X Extension,
`Protocol Version 1.0, X Consortium Standard)
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5,9, 11, 17, 20, 23, 69, 72, 73, 79, 81, 86, 89, 90, 96 and 98 are
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by LBX.
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`over LBX in View of Realtime’s admissions.
`
`Claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being obvious over
`LBX in View of Kawashima.
`
`Claims 9, 81,and 98 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`over LBX in View of:
`
`o LBX, or
`
`0 Images.
`Claim 16 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being obvious over LBX in
`View of:
`
`0 Images, or
`o O’Brian, or
`0 Craft.
`
`Claim 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being obvious over LBX in
`View of CCITT V.42 bis.
`
`Claim 21 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over LBX in
`View of:
`
`o Futato, or
`o Aakre.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`Claims 27, 39, 70, 71, 84, 85, 87 and 88 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`103 (a) as being obvious over LBX in View of:
`o Kawashima, or
`0 French, or
`o CCITT V.42 bis.
`
`Claim 73 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over LBX in
`view of:
`
`o Kawashima, or
`0 French.
`
`2.
`
`Proposed rejections based on French
`
`Claims 69-73, 79, 81, 84-88, 90, 96 and 98 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`by French.
`Claims 69 and 86 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`over French in View of Realtime’s admissions.
`
`3.
`
`Proposed rejections based on Sebastian
`
`Claims 1 and 69 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Sebastian.
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 014
`
`

`

`Reexam of US. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`Claims 1 and 69 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 1 03(a) as being obvious over
`Sebastian in View of Realtime’s admissions.
`
`Claims 2—6, 8-9, 11, 17, 21-23, 41-43, 72-73, 79 and 81 are anticipated under 35
`U.S.C. § 102 by Sebastian.
`Claim 16 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Sebastian in View of:
`o O’Brien ‘998, or
`0 Craft or lTU T81, or
`o ITU T263.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`Claim 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Sebastian in View of:
`o Franaszek, or
`o Reynar.
`Claims 27 and 39 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Sebastian in View
`of:
`
`o CCITT V.42 bis, or
`o Reynar.
`
`Claims 70, 71, 84—90, 96 and 98 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by
`Sebastian in View of:
`
`o CCITT V.42 bis, or
`o Kawashima.
`
`Claim 82 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Sebastian in View of
`McLean.
`
`Claim 86 is unpatenlable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Sebastian in View of:
`o CCITT V.42 bis, or
`o Kawashima, further in View of Realtime’s admissions.
`
`4.
`
`Proposed rejections based on Franaszek
`
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Franaszek.
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`over Franaszek in View of Realtime’s admissions.
`
`Claims 2-7, 17, 20, 23, 27, 39, 41-43, 70-73, 79, 81, 82, 84-85, 87, 90, 96 and 98
`are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Franaszek.
`Claims 21 and 22 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Franaszek in View
`of:
`
`o Futato, or
`o Aakre.
`
`Claims 8 and 16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) by Franaszek in View
`of:
`
`ITUH.263, or
`ITU T8], or
`O’Brien ‘946, or
`Craft.
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 015
`
`

`

`Reexam ofU.S, Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`5.
`
`Proposed rejections based on Lafe
`
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Lafe.
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 1 03(a) as being obvious
`over Lafe in View of Realtime’s admissions.
`
`Claims 2, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 16-17, 20-23, 72-73, 79, 81, 89-90, 96 and 98 are
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Lafe.
`Claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) by Lafe in view of ITU
`T.81.
`
`Claims 7 and 41-43 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in View of:
`o Reynar, or
`o Wernikoff, or
`o Cellier, or
`o Franaszek.
`
`Claims 20 and 87 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in view of
`Kawashima.
`
`Claims 21 and 22 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in view of:
`o Futato, or
`o Aakre.
`
`Claims 27, 39, 70, 84, 85 and 88 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by
`Lafe in view of:
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Reynar.
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are unpatenlable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`over Reynar in view of Realtime’s admissions.
`Claims 2—7, 9, 11, 17, 21, 23, 27, 39, 41—42, 72-73, 79, 81, 82, 89-90 and 98 are
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Reynar.
`Claim 22 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Reynar in View of:
`o Futato, or
`
`o CCITT V.42 bis, or
`o Kawashima.
`
`0 Claim 71 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in view of
`CCITT V.42 bis.
`
`Claim 71 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in view of CCITT
`V.42 bis.
`
`Claim 82 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in View of:
`0 Simpson ACM, or
`Parallel Lossless ICBN, or
`Dye, or
`McLean, or
`ITU H.263.
`
`6.
`
`Proposed rejections based on Reynar
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 016
`
`

`

`Reexam ofU.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`o Aakre.
`
`Claims 70, 71, 84-85 and 87-88 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by
`Reynar in view of:
`o CCITT V.42 bis, or
`o Kawashima.
`
`Claim 82 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Reynar in View of:
`0 Simpson ACM, or
`Parallel Lossless ICBN, or
`
`Dye, or
`McLean.
`
`7.
`
`Summary ofReexamination before the CRU
`
`The Central Reexam Unit (CRU) granted the Request August 14, 2009, and on December
`
`Claims 8 and 16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in View of:
`o lTU H.263, or
`o ITU T.81, or
`o O’Brien, or
`0 Craft.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`15, 2009, issued a Non—Final Office Action (“Office Action”).
`
`Patent Owner replied to the Office Action (“Reply”) on March 15, 2010. The CRU
`
`issued an Action Closing Prosecution (“ACP”) on August 27, 2010, and Patent Owner timely
`
`submitted a Response to the ACP (“Realtime’s Response to ACP”) on September 27, 2010. The
`
`CRU issued a Right of Appeal Notice (“RA ”) on January 6, 2011.
`
`Patent Owner timely filed its Notice of Appeal on February 7, 2011. Though it was
`
`entitled to appeal over the allowed claims, Requester did not file a notice of appeal or a notice of
`
`cross appeal in this case. The issues on appeal are therefore limited to those presented by Patent
`
`Owner in this appeal brief.
`
`C.
`
`The Problem to Be Solved by the Present Invention
`
`The ‘506 patent
`
`issued from US. Patent Application No. 10/668,768 (“the ‘768
`
`application”), which was a continuation of US. Patent Application No. 10/016,355 (“the ‘355
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 017
`
`

`

`- 18 -
`
`Reexam of US. Patent No. 7,161,506
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`application”), filed on October 29, 2001, which was a continuation-in-part (CIP) of parent US
`
`Patent Application No. 09/705,466 (“the ‘466 parent application”), filed on November 3, 2000.
`
`In the Background section of these applications, Patent Owner explained that prior art
`
`compression of an input data stream involved two phases. The first phase was “retrieval” of a
`
`priori data type information, also referred to as file descriptors, file type descriptors, or filename
`
`extensions, and the second phase was compression of the data. (See ‘506 Patent at 2:54 et seq.)
`
`The “prior art” retrieval of data type information involved looking at “type