PATENTS
`103532-0003-603
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`INTER PAR TES REEXAMINATION
`
`Reexam
`
`Control No.
`
`:
`
`95/000,479
`
`Confirmation No. :
`
`SYSTEMS AND METHOD FOR DATA COMPRESSION
`SUCH AS CONTENT DEPENDENT DATA
`COMPRESSION
`
`Reexamination.
`
`Filed
`
`: May 28, 2009
`
`For Reexamination of
`
`Patent No.
`
`:
`
`7,161,506
`
`Issued
`
`For
`
`January 9, 2007
`
`:
`
`:
`
`Patent Owner
`
`: Realtime Data LLC
`
`Art Unit
`
`:
`
`3992
`
`Examiner
`
`: Christina Y. Leung
`
`Mail Stop INTER PAR TES REEXAM
`Hon. Commissioner for Patents
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 223 13-1450
`
`New York, New York 10036
`March 15, 2010
`
`REPLY TO OFFICE ACTION IN INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION
`
`Patent Owner hereby replies to the December 15, 2009 Office Action in Inter
`
`Partes Reexamination of the above-identified patent ("patent-in-reexamination” or “’506
`
`Patent”).
`
`Remarks begin on page 2 of this Reply to Office Action in Inter Partes
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1011
`Page 001
`
`

`

`REMARKS
`
`Summam of Office Action
`
`The patent—in—reexamination includes claims 1—99. Claims 1—9, 11, 16-17, 20-
`
`23, 27, 39, 41-43, 69-73, 79, 81-82, 84-90, 96, and 98 are subject to reexamination.
`
`Claims 69—73, 79, 81, 84-90, 96 and 98 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) as allegedly being anticipated by US. Patent 5,794,229 to French.
`
`Claims 1—6, 8,9, 11, 17, 21-23, 41-43, 69, 72, 73, 79 and 81 have been
`
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as allegedly being anticipated by US. Patent 6,253,264 to
`Sebastian.
`
`Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 17, 20, 23, 39, 41-43, 69-73, 79,81, 82, 84-90, 96 and 98
`
`have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as allegedly being anticipated by US. Patent
`
`5,870,036 to Franaszek (“Franaszek ’036”).
`
`Claim 16 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being obvious
`
`from Sebastian in View of US. Patent 4,988,998 to O’Brien or US. Patent 5,627,534 to
`
`Craft.
`
`Claim 20 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly being
`
`obvious from Sebastian in View of Franaszek ’036 or US. Patent 5,951,623 to Reynar.
`
`Claims 27 and 39 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly
`
`being obvious from Sebastian in view of CClTT Recommendation V.42bis or Reynar.
`
`Claim 82 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly being
`
`obvious from Sebastian in View of US Patent 5,167,034 to MacLean.
`
`Claims 70, 71, 84-90, 96 and 98 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`infringement suit involving the ’506 Patent, Realtime Data LLC d/b/a 1X0 v. Packeteer, Inc.
`
`as allegedly being obvious from Sebastian in View of CClTT Recommendation V.42bis or
`WO95/29437 to Kawashima.
`
`Claims 8 and 16 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly
`
`being obvious from Franaszek ’036 in View of O’Brien or Craft.
`
`Claim 22 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly being
`
`obvious from Franaszek ’036 in View of US. Patent 4,956,808 to Aakre.
`
`
`Updatc Regarding Litigation Involving Requestor (“Rclatcd Litigation”)
`
`Patent Owner hereby notifies the Patent and Trademark Office that the patent
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1011
`Page 002
`
`

`

`et al, (Civil Action No. 6:08-cv-00144-LED) (ED. Texas), has been dismissed with
`
`prejudice as of February 1, 2010 pursuant to a settlement and license agreement, and that the
`
`settling defendants include Requester. Patent Owner does not expect Requester to participate
`
`further in this reexamination proceeding.
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply to the Prior Art Rejections
`
`A.
`
`
`Applicable Standard For Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`Each of claims 1—9, 11, 17, 20—23, 39, 41—43, 69—73, 79, 81-82, 84—90, 96, and
`
`98 of the patent-in—reexamination has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102. With respect to a
`
`rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the MPEP states that “A claim is anticipated only if each
`
`and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described,
`
`in a single prior art reference.” MPEP § 2131, citing Verdegaal Bros. v. Union 02'] Co. of
`
`California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Each ofthe
`
`rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and § 102(e) fails to meet this standard.
`
`Court affirmed that the factors identified in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 US. 1 (1966)
`
`
`Applicable Standard For Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`B.
`
`Claims 8, 16, 20, 27, 39, 70-71, 82, 84-90, 96 and 98 ofthe patent-in-
`
`reexamination also have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a). With respect to a rejection
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the initial burden of factually supporting any
`
`prima facie conclusion of obviousness. MPEP § 2142. If the examiner determines there is
`
`factual support for rejecting the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner must
`
`consider any evidence supporting the patentability of the claimed invention, such as any
`
`evidence in the specification or any other evidence submitted by the Patent Owner. The
`
`ultimate determination of patentability is based on the entire record, by a preponderance of
`
`evidence, with due consideration to the persuasiveness of any arguments and any secondary
`
`evidence. The legal standard of “a preponderance of evidence” requires the evidence to be
`
`more convincing than the evidence Which is sought in opposition to it. See Id, citing In re
`
`OeIiker, 977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`
`Further, in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 550 US. 398 (2007), the Supreme
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1011
`Page 003
`
`

`

`continue to define the controlling inquiry. See MPEP § 2141 and Id. at 1729-30.1 The
`
`Supreme Court recognized that the presence or absence of a “teaching, suggestion or
`
`motivation” to combine prior art to meet the claimed subject matter could provide a helpful
`
`insight, regardless of the particular form of the “teaching, suggestion or motivation.” Id. at
`
`1731, 1741-43. The rejections of claims 8, 16, 20, 27, 39, 70-71, 82, 84-90, 96 and 98 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) fails to meet these standards because a necessary showing has not been
`
`made by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`C.
`
`Applicable Standard for Claim Interpretation in Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`patented.” Graham, 383 US. at 17-18.
`
`1 “Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences
`between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary
`skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background the obviousness or
`nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such secondary considerations as
`commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to
`give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be
`
`The words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain
`
`meaning is inconsistent with the specification. MPEP § 21 1 1.01, citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
`
`319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). This plain meaning, or ordinary and customary meaning, is the
`
`meaning that the term would have to a person ofordinary skill in the art in question at the
`
`time of the invention. In addition, the ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be
`
`evidenced by a variety of sources, including “the words of the claims themselves, the
`
`remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning
`
`relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.” MPEP
`
`§ 2111.01, citing Phillips 12. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`During reexamination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the
`
`claims. MPEP § 2258(G), citing In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984). While
`
`Patent Owner recognizes the Examiner’s duty to give the claims their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation without reading limitations from the specifications into the claims, such
`
`interpretation must be not only reasonable, but also consistent with the specification of the
`
`’506 patent.
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1011
`Page 004
`
`

`

`D.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`Summary of the Claims Under Reexamination
`
`Patent Owner’s invention, as defined in independent Claims 1, 69, and 86, is
`
`directed to methods for compressing data. According to claim 1, the method comprises
`
`analyzing a data block of an input data stream to identify a data type and, if the data type is
`
`identified, performing content dependent data compression on the data block. If the data type
`
`is not identified, compression is performed with a single data compression encoder.
`
`Independent claim 69 recites a method for compressing data that includes
`
`receiving a data block in uncompressed form, analyzing the data block to determine the data
`
`type, and compressing the data block if one or more encoders are associated with the data
`
`type, or else compressing the data block with a data compression encoder. The else
`
`limitation is practiced if the data block is n_ot associated with the determined data type.
`
`lndependent claim 86 recites a method for compressing data that includes
`
`receiving a data block, determining whether to output the data block in received form or
`
`compressed form and, based on the determination, outputting the data block in received form
`
`or compressed form. If the data block is output in compressed form, the determining
`
`limitation includes determining whether to compress the data block with content dependent
`
`2 As used herein, the notation “x:y-z” refers to “col. X, lines y-z.”
`
`compression based on the data type or compress the block with a single data compression
`encoder.
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of “data stream”
`
`A fundamental distinction between Patent Owner’s invention, as defined in
`
`independent claims 1, 69, and 86, and the cited prior art stems from the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the claim terms “input data stream” and “data stream.” The words of a
`
`claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the
`
`specification. MPEP § 2111.01, citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). This
`
`plain meaning is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in question at the time of the invention. MPEP § 21 1 1.01, citing Phillips v. A WH Corp. , 415
`
`F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Patent Owner’s specification refers to a received data
`
`stream as including one or more data blocks input into the Patent Owner’s data compression
`
`system. (5% Patent at 8:11-14.)2 Further, at col. 6, lines 59-63, the patent-in-reexamination
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1011
`Page 005
`
`

`

`indicates that “data blocks .
`
`.
`
`. may range in size from individual bits through complete files
`
`or collections of multiple files,” and that “the input data block size may be fixed or
`
`variable.” Additionally, Patent Owner’s specification indicates in FIG. 2, and described at
`
`col. 6, lines 50—62, that the data stream is received and processed by Patent Owner’s data
`
`compression system. One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret these definitions in the
`
`specification collectively in a manner that conforms with a data stream being defined as “a
`
`continuous stream of data elements being transmitted, or intended for transmission”
`
`(IEEEIOO, The Authoritative Dictionary QfIEEE Standards Terms, 7th Ed. 2000, p. 273). A
`
`copy of the IEEE definition is attached. In the context of the patcnt-in—rcexamination, one
`
`compression system rather than another element of the computer system of which Patent
`
`Owner’s data compression system is a component. (Modestino Decl. 1111 9-11.)3
`
`Additionally, regardless of the quantity or composition of data included in the
`
`construction of the claim terms “input data stream” and “data stream,” this construction must
`
`take into account how the data stream is received. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the
`
`skilled in the art would interpret the IEEE definition consistent with the intrinsic evidence to
`mean that Patent Owner’s “data stream” is transmitted to and received at Patent Owner’s data
`
`3 See the accompanying Declaration of Dr. James W. Modestino Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132.
`
`art would consider a received “data stream” to imply a stream of data transmitted from a
`
`source (whose characteristics are therefore not controlled by the data compression system)
`
`and received at the input to a system or device, rather than data simply retrieved by the data
`
`compression system from a passive storage device such as system memory using standard
`
`storage device access techniques. (Modestino Decl. 1111 12-13.) Accordingly, in the Related
`
`Litigation, Patent Owner advocated a construction of the terms “data stream” and “receiving
`
`a data stream” to indicate that the data is passively received. The parties to the Related
`
`Litigation agreed that the claims and specification do not explicitly require initiation by the
`
`receiver, but asked the court to rule on whether a person of ordinary skill would consider
`
`these terms to indicate that the data is passively received. The court did not adopt this
`
`construction, reasoning that the patcnt-in—rccxamination does not indicate whether the data is
`
`passively received or not. That ruling was subject to appeal when the Related Litigation
`
`settled on February 1, 2010.
`Patent Owner also advocated this definition of “data stream” in the
`
`reexaminations of commonly-assigned US. Patents 6,601,104 (Reexam Control No.
`
`90/009,428) and 7,321,937 (Reexam Control No. 95/000,466) and in the Related Litigation.
`
`The Examiner handling this reexamination is not the examiner handling the ’428 and ’466
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1011
`Page 006
`
`

`

`reexaminations. In a February 5, 2010 final rejection in the ’428 reexamination, the
`
`examiner noted that the aforementioned IEEE dictionary includes another definition of “data
`
`stream.” According to the other definition, a “data stream” refers to “[a]ll data that is
`
`transmitted through an input—output channel in a single read or write transmission.” Patent
`
`Owner respectfully submits that that other definition is inconsistent with the specification of
`
`the patent-in—reexamination because while it also uses the word “transmitted” it refers to a
`
`single read or write operation in an input-output channel. Unlike a single read or write
`
`operation, the patent—in-reexamination defines an input data stream as containing “one or
`
`more data blocks” and explains that “compression is performed on a per data block basis.”
`
`(’506 Patent at 8:12-15.) One skilled in the art would understand that this description in the
`
`patent-in—reexamination is not a description of a “single read or write operation” as stated in
`
`the other IEEE definition. (Modestino Decl. 11 14.)
`
`Patent Owner recognizes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`standard, the Examiner must give the term “data stream” its broadest reasonable construction
`
`“in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.”
`
`MPEP § 2111, citing In re Am. Acad. afScz'. Tech. C171, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004). While Patent Owner recognizes the Examiner’s duty to give the claims their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, that interpretation must be not only reasonable, but also consistent
`
`with the specification of the patcnt-in—rcexamination. In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1267
`
`standard.
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2009) (broadest reasonable interpretation during examination is solely examination
`
`expedient, not rule of claim construction, and protocol does not include giving claims legally
`
`incorrect interpretation). In this case, Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Examiner
`
`takes so broad a reading of “data stream” that not only is the Examiner’s interpretation
`
`u_nreasonable, and i_nconsistent with the specification of the patent—in—reexamination, but
`
`actually so broad that it causes “stream” to be read out of the claim.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner also acknowledges that limitations from the
`
`specification are not to be read into the claim, but Patent Owner is not trying to read
`
`limitations into the claim. The limitation “data stream” or “input data stream” is already in
`
`the claims; Patent Owner is merely defining the limitations in a manner consistent, rather
`
`than inconsistent, with the specification.
`
`For at least these reasons, Patent Owner respectfully submits that its proposed
`
`definition of “data stream” is appropriate under the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1011
`Page 007
`
`

`

`The broadest reasonable interpretation of“analyzing a data block”
`
`Another fundamental distinction between Patent Owner’s invention, as
`
`defined by independent claims 1 and 69, and the cited prior art stems from the claim
`
`language “analyzing a data block.”
`
`The phrases “analyzing a data block .
`
`.
`
`. to identify one or more data types”
`
`and “analyzing said data block to determine a type,” in claims 1 and 69 respectively, refer to
`
`a direct examination of data contained in a data block (a “direct approach”). In the
`
`specification, Patent Owner distinguishes prior art compression systems that rely on “file
`
`type descriptors [that] are typically appended to file names to describe the application
`
`programs that normally act upon the data contained within the file.” (’506 Patent at 2:49-56)
`
`(an “indirect approach”). In accordance with Patent Owner’s direct approach, the
`
`specification describes a content dependent data recognition module 1300 that analyzes
`
`incoming data blocks “to recognize data types, data structures, data block formats, file
`
`substructures, file types, and/or any other parameters that may be indicative of either the data
`
`or inherently, each and every element of independent claims 69 and 86.
`
`The Rejection of Claims 69—73, 79, 81, 84—90, 96 and 98 Under 35 U.S.C. § 1021b:
`based on French
`
`type/content of a given data block or the appropriate data compression algorithm or
`
`algorithms (in serial or in parallel) to be applied.” (’506 Patent at 16:26-32.) The
`
`specification also describes direct examination in connection with recognizing input data
`
`where “the content data compression module recognizes a portion ofthe data, .
`
`.
`
`. “ (’506
`
`Patent at 23:37-41.) The specification also provides an example of an analysis of a text
`
`document that describes a direct examination of data in a data block. In particular, the
`
`specification of the 5% Patent states that “a determination that the locality of repetition of
`
`characters in a data stream is .
`
`.
`
`. high can suggest a text document, .
`
`. .” (’506 Patent at
`
`23 :41-45.) Only a direct approach is concerned with the repetition of characters in a data
`
`stream. Based on the intrinsic evidence, a person ofordinary skill would conclude that
`
`“analyzing a data block” refers to a direct examination of data contained in a data block.
`
`(Modestino Decl. 1M 18—19.)
`
`Claims 69-73, 79, 81, 84-90, 96, 98 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b) as allegedly being anticipated by French. Claims 69 and 86 are independent claims.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that French does not show, either expressly
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1011
`Page 008
`
`

`

`French does not show a “data stream,” as required by independent claims 69
`and 86
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that French does not show a “data stream”
`
`and therefore does not show “receiving .
`
`.
`
`. a data stream,” as required by Patent Owner’s
`
`independent claims 69 and 86. The term “data stream” refers to a continuous stream of data
`
`elements transmitted to and processed by Patent Owner’s data compression system, as
`
`the basis of a query and the column data is decompressed in the Buffer Manager within the
`
`French does not show “receiving a data block in uncompressed form,”
`as required by independent claim 69
`
`explained in Section D.2 above.
`
`Keeping in mind the intrinsic evidence defining “data stream” in Patent
`
`Owner’s specification, as well as the extrinsic definition of “data stream,” the data that
`
`French streams to disk is not a “data stream” because it involves data output from French’s
`
`Buffer Manager rather than the data received from a source whose characteristics are not
`
`controlled by the compression system. Further, French discloses that “[d]ata compression is
`
`added to the system at the level of the Cache or Buffer Managers.” (French at 1628-10.) The
`
`“data pages of an object are compressed when sent out to the disk.” (French at 16:13—14.)
`
`The uncompressed data pages clearly reside in the system memory of French’s apparatus, as
`
`do the buffers managed by French’s Buffer Manager. (French at 17:62—63.) One skilled in
`
`the art would know that this type of standard memory retrieval does not constitute “receiving
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. a data stream,” as claimed in the patent—in—reexamination. (Modestino Decl. 1| 16.) For at
`
`least these reasons, French does not show a “data stream,” and thus does not show the
`
`“receiving” feature as required by Patent Owner’s claims 69 and 86. Therefore, claims 69
`
`and 86, and claims 70-73, 79, 81, 84-85, 87-90, 96 and 98, which depend from independent
`
`claims 69 and 86, are not anticipated by French, and the Examiner’s rejections of those
`
`claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 should be withdrawn.
`
`Independent claim 69 is not anticipated by French for the additional reason
`
`that French does not disclose “receiving a data block in uncompressed form.” The Examiner
`
`alleges that French shows this feature of Patent Owner’s claim 69 at col. 27, lines 50—60.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that the cited passage from French discloses storing data
`
`to disk. At best, this passage teaches outputting, not “receiving.”
`
`French discloses a database management system where data is stored in a
`
`database server in compressed form to minimize memory space. The data is then retrieved on
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1011
`Page 009
`
`

`

`database server. The only 1/0 (input/output) transfers described in French refer to retrieval
`
`of compressed data for decompression. (French at 3:5 8—64.) As noted above, this data will be
`
`decompressed by the system, not compressed (“[t]hc data pages of an obj eet are compressed
`
`when sent out to disk and 142 decompressed when retrieved from disk .
`
`.
`
`. .”) (French at
`
`4:32-35.) One skilled in the art would understand that, in the context of the patent-in-
`
`reexamination, this type of disk retrieval does not constitute “receiving a data block in
`
`uncompressed form,” as recited in claim 69. (Modestino Decl. 1] 23.)
`
`For at least these additional reasons, claim 69, and claims 70—73 and 79, 81
`
`and 84-85, which depend from independent claim 69, are not anticipated by French, and the
`
`Examiner’s rejections of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 should be withdrawn.
`
`French does not show analyzing a data block to determine a type, as required
`by independent claim 69
`
`Independent claim 69 is not anticipated by French for the additional reason
`
`that French does not show “analyzing a data block .
`
`.
`
`. to identify a data type.” The phrase
`
`“analyzing a data block” refers to a direct examination of data contained in a data block for
`
`the reasons described in Section D.3 above. French does not disclose “analyzing a data
`
`block” because French discloses data blocks (i.e., pages) that are self—identified.
`
`In French, data is arranged into pages having page headers that store a status
`
`flag indicating whether the page is a candidate for compression and (optionally) what type of
`
`compression is best suited for the data on that page. (French at 4:18-23.) If the user has
`
`specified a compression type, the system will compress the page using the specified
`
`compression. If no compression type has been specified, the system will select a
`
`compression type. (French at 27:51-53.) French actually teaches providing a page header on
`
`an uncompressed page that identifies the data type of the page (i.e., data block). Those
`
`skilled in the art would understand that simply reading the page header to learn the data type
`
`refers to an indirect, rather than direct, technique for ascertaining a data type. (Modestino
`
`Examiner’s rejections of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 should be withdrawn.
`
`Decl. 1| 24.) In contrast, Patent Owner‘s claim 69 requires a direct examination of data
`contained in the data block.
`
`For at least these additional reasons, claim 69, and claims 70—73 and 79, 81
`
`and 84-85, which depend from independent claim 69, are not anticipated by French, and the
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1011
`Page 010
`
`

`

`Independent claim 69 is not anticipated by French for the additional reason
`
`that French does not disclose the “else” portion of the compressing limitation, namely
`
`“compressing said data block with a data compression encoder.” Claim 69 includes an
`
`“analyzing” limitation for determining a data type of an incoming data block followed by an
`
`“if-else” construct. The “if ’ portion states that if the determined data type is associated with
`
`an encoder, the data block is compressed using the associated encoder. The “else” portion is
`
`practiced in all other scenarios including if no encoder is associated with the determined data
`
`type or if the data type could not be determined in the “analyzing” limitation. The Office
`
`Action does not specify whether the Examiner contends that the “if ’ portion is met by user-
`
`specified compression or system—selected compression. Either way, French does not disclose
`
`a required element.
`
`French does not show a data compression encoder not associated with the
`determined data type, as recited in independent claim 69
`
`11
`
`1f the Examiner contends that the “if ’ portion is met by the system—selected
`
`compression, then the user-specified compression would be performed if the system-selected
`
`compression is not. However, French does not disclose this process. French teaches that
`
`user-specified compression is applied before system-specified compression, not after.
`
`Specifically, French provides that “[w]hen no type is specified by the user, the system picks a
`
`default compression type (ctype) based on the page type (btype).” (French at 27:54-56.)
`
`Therefore, system—selected or default compression in French cannot be mapped on the “if ’
`
`portion of claim 69 because French teaches that user-specified compression is applied before
`
`system—selected compression.
`
`Even if the Examiner contends the opposite—that the “if ’ portion is met by
`
`the user-selected compression and the “else” portion is met by the system—selected
`
`compression—French does not disclose the “else” portion. French does not disclose the
`
`“else” portion because French teaches only content—dependent compression. In particular,
`
`French teaches that when compression type is specified by the user, it is specified for a
`
`particular type of page. (French at 24:20-22, 26:1-2 (code).) French also teaches that
`
`“[w]hen no [compression] type is specified by the user, the system picks a default
`
`compression type (ctype) based on the page type (btype).” (French at 27:54—56) (emphasis
`
`added). Therefore, to the extent compression takes place, a_ll pages in French that are
`
`streamed to disk are compressed with an encoder associated with a data type, whether
`
`selected by the system or the user. (Modestino Decl. 1T 25.) In contrast, the “else” portion of
`
`claim 69 implicitly requires compression with a data compression encoder not associated to
`
`the determined data type. Thus, French does not disclose “else compressing said data block
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1011
`Page 011
`
`

`

`with a data compression encoder.”
`
`For at least these additional reasons, claim 69, and claims 70—73 and 79-85,
`
`which depend from independent claim 69, are not anticipated by French, and the Examiner’s
`
`rejections of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 should be withdrawn.
`
`French does not show determining whether to compress with content
`
`dependent compression as required by independent claim 86
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that French does not show “determining
`
`whether to compress .
`
`.
`
`. with content dependent compression,” as required by Patent
`
`Owner’s independent claim 86.
`
`Claim 86 requires determining whether to compress a data block using content
`
`dependent compression based on the data type or compressing the data block using content
`
`independent compression. In particular, claim 86 recites “determining whether to compress
`
`said data block with content dependent compression based on the type of said data block.”
`
`Otherwise, claim 86 requires compression with “a single data compression encoder.”
`
`French teaches only content dependent data compression based on data type
`for the reasons described in Section E.4 above. Because all data blocks that are streamed to
`
`69 are independent claims.
`
`disk in French are subject to content-dependent compression, French cannot teach a single
`
`compression encoder that compresses data blocks not subject to content-dependent
`
`compression based on type, as claim 86 requires. Additionally, because all of the data blocks
`
`(i.e., pages) in French are subject to content dependent compression, in the sense that the data
`
`block has an associated type, it is not necessary to “determine” whether or not to use content
`
`dependent compression. Thus, French does not teach the element “or to compress said data
`
`block with a single data compression encoder” and, more broadly, “determining whether to
`
`compress with content dependent compression.”
`
`For at least these additional reasons, claim 86, and claims 87—90, 96, and 98,
`
`which depend from independent claim 86, are not anticipated by French, and the Examiner’s
`
`rejections of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 should be withdrawn.
`
`The Rejection of Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11, 17, 21-23, 41-43, 69, 72, 73, 79 and 81 Under
`35 U.S.C.
`102 6 based on Sebastian
`
`Claims 1—6, 8, 9, 11, 17, 21-23, 41-43, 69, 72, 73, 79 and 81 have been
`
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as allegedly being anticipated by Sebastian. Claims 1 and
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1011
`Page 012
`
`

`

`Patent Owner respectfully submits that Sebastian does not show, either
`
`expressly or inherently, each and every element of independent claims 1 and 69.
`
`Sebastian does not show analyzing a data block to determine a data type,
`
`as required by independent claims 1 and 69
`
`lndependent claims 1 and 69 are not anticipated by Sebastian because
`
`Sebastian does not disclose “analyzing a data block .
`
`.
`
`. to identify a data type of the data
`
`block.” The phrase “analyzing a data block” refers to a direct examination of data contained
`in a data block for the reasons described in Section D.3 above. Sebastian does not disclose
`
`compression, refers to activating one or more encoders based on a recognized data type. In
`
`“analyzing a data block” because Sebastian discloses data blocks that are self-identified.
`
`Sebastian discloses an indirect technique for ascertaining a data type from file
`
`type descriptors, rather than a direct examination of data contained in the data block, which
`
`claims 1 and 69 require. Sebastian discloses a software architecture referred to as a Base-
`
`Filter—Resource (BFR) system that filters, parses, and eventually compresses incoming data
`
`blocks. In particular, Sebastian discloses a filter selection system 22 that receives source data
`
`2 and checks selection criteria 12 of filters 10 installed in the system to see if any of them
`
`support the source data’s format. (Sebastian at 4:9-12.) The selection criteria 12 includes
`
`information needed to recognize files served by filter 10 “such as byte values at the
`
`beginning of the file or file title suffi[x]es.” (Sebastian at 4:46-50.) Those skilled in the art
`
`would understand that simply checking a byte value at the beginning of a file or a file title
`
`refers to an indirect, rather than direct, technique for ascertaining a data type. (Modestino
`
`Decl. 1| 21.) In contrast, Patent Owner‘s claims 1 and 69 requires a direct examination of
`data contained in the data block.
`
`Therefore, claims 1 and 69, and claims 2-6, 8, 9, 11, 17, 21—23, 41—43, 72, 73,
`
`79 and 81, which depend from independent claims 1 and 69, are not anticipated by Sebastian,
`
`and the Examiner’s rejections of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 should be withdrawn.
`
`Sebastian does not show “enabling at least one encoder .
`data block,” as required by claim 5
`
`.
`
`. to compress said
`
`Claim 5 is not anticipated by Sebastian for all of the reasons given above in
`
`connection with independent claim 1. In addition, claim 5 is not anticipated by Sebastian
`
`because Sebastian does not disclose “enabling” an encoder.
`
`Patent Owner’s use of “enabling,” in the context of content dependent
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1011
`Page 013
`
`

`

`that regard, the specification