’
`
`EXAMINER
`
`'
`
`LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y
`ART UNIT
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`08/27/2010
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Olficc
`‘ Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.0. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.usplo.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION N0.
`
`95/000,479
`
`05/28/2009
`
`7161506
`
`080272-0012
`
`2572
`
`08/27/201 0
`7590
`251 n
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1012
`Page 001
`
`

`

`1". UNI TED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Commissionerror Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Omte
`P.O. BOX1450
`22313-1450
`Wusptogov
`
`Alexandria,
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`MCDERMOTF WILL & EMERY LLP
`600 13‘" STREET NW
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005-3096
`
`PTOL—207O (Rev.07-04)
`
`Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this
`communication, the third party requester of the inter partes reexamination may once file
`written comments within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's
`response. This 30-day time period is statutory (35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot
`be extended. See also 37 CFR 1.947.
`
`Transmittal of Communication to Third Party Requester
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NUMBER 95/000 479.
`
`PATENT NUMBER 7 161 506.
`
`TECHNOLOGY CENTER 3900.
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office in the above-identified reexamination proceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
`
`If an ex parte reexamination has been merged with the inter partes reexamination, no
`responsive submission by any ex parte third party requester is permitted.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be
`directed to the Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or.hand-carry addresses
`given at the end of the communication enclosed with this transmittal.
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1012
`Page 002
`
`

`

`Control No.
`
`
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`ACTION CLOSING PROSECUTION 95/000,479
`
`Christina Y. Leun
`
`'
`
`7161506
`
`3992
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --
`
`Responsive to the communication(s) filed by:
`Patent Owner on 15 March 2010
`
`Third Party(ies) on
`
`Patent owner may once file a submission under 37 CFR 1.951(a) within 1 month(s) from the mailing date of this
`Office action. Where a submission is filed, third party requester may file responsive comments under 37 CFR
`1.951 (b) within 30-days (not extendable- 35 U.S.C. § 314(b)(2)) from the date of service of the initial
`submission on the requester. Appeal cannot be taken from this action. Appeal can only be taken from a
`Right of Appeal Notice under 37 CFR 1.953.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the Central
`Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end ofthis Office action.
`
`PART I. THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:
`
`1. D Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892
`2. IE Information Disclosure Citation, PTO/SB/08
`3.l:l
`
`PART II. SUMMARY OF ACTION:
`
`1a. E Claims See Continuation Sheet are subject to reexamination.
`1b.
`Claims See Continuation Sheet are not subject to reexamination.
`
`2. El Claims __ have been canceled.
`. E Claims 6 7 16 41 and 42 are confirmed. [Unamended patent claims]
`. El Claims _ are patentable.
`[Amended or new claims]
`. El Claims 1-5 8 9 11 17 20—23 27 39 43 69-73 79 81 82 84-90 96 and 98 are rejected.
`
`PTOL-2065 (08/06)
`
`[:1 Claims __ are objected to.
`.
`E] are not acceptable.
`E] are acceptable
`. E] The drawings filed on __
`[:1 The drawing correction request filed on __ is:
`El approved.
`[:l disapproved.
`El Acknowledgment is made of the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has:
`I] been received.
`,D not been received.
`[:1 been filed in Application/Control No
`
`10. C] Other
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Paper No. 20100823
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1012
`Page 003
`
`

`

`.
`
`A “
`
`Control NO- 95/000,479
`Continuation Sheet (PTOL-2065)
`Continuation of SUMMARY OF ACTION: 13. Claims subject to reexamination are 1-9,11,16,17,20-23,27,39.41—43,69—73,79,81,82,84-90,96
`and 98.
`Continuation of SUMMARY OF ACTION: 1b. Claims not subject to reexamination are 10,12-15,18,19,24—2528-38ADA46874-
`
`78.80.83,91-95.97 and 99.
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1012
`Page 004
`
`

`

`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Reexamination
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1-9, 11, 16, 17, 20-23, 27, 39, 41-43, 69-73, 79, 81, 82, 84-90, 96, and 98 of
`
`Fallon (US 7,161,506 B2) are being reexamined. Claims 10, 12-15, 18, 19, 24—26, 28-38, 40,
`
`44-68, 74-78, 80, 83, 91-95, 97, and 99 are not subject to reexamination.
`
`References and Documents Cited in this Action
`
`Fallon (US 7,161,506 32)
`
`French (US 5,794,220 A)
`
`Sebastian (US 6,253,264 B1)
`
`Franaszek (US 5,870,036 A)
`
`O’Brien (US 4,988,998 A)
`
`Craft (US 5,627,534 A)
`
`Reynar (US 5,951,623 A)
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,479
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Consortium Standard,” 21 December 1996)
`
`CCITT V.42 bis (“Data Compression Procedures for Data Circuit Terminating
`
`Equipment [DCE] Using Error Correction Procedures,” CCITT Recommendation V.42 bis,
`
`1990)
`
`MacLean (US 5,167,034 A)
`
`Kawashima (WO95/29437 A1; English-language equivalent document, US 5,805,932
`
`Aakre (US 4,956,808 A)
`
`LBX (Converse et a1, “Low Bandwidth X Extension, Protocol Version 1.0, X
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1012
`Page 005
`
`

`

`LBX X (“LBX X Consortium Algorithms”)
`
`Images (“Basics of Images,”
`
`http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/events/courses/ l 996/cmwh/Stills/basicshtml, 1996)
`
`Held (“Data Compression Techniques and Applications,” 1991)
`
`ITU H.263 (“Video Coding for Low Bit Rate Communication,” ITU Recommendation
`
`H.263, March 1996)
`
`ITU T.81 (“Digital Compression and Coding of Continuous Tone Still Images,” ITU
`
`Recommendation T.81, September 1992
`
`Howard (Howard, Paul and Jeffrey Vitter, “Parallel Lossless Image Compression Using
`
`Huffman and Arithmetic Coding,” Data Compression Conference, 27 March 1992)
`
`Simpson (Simpson et al., “A Multiple Processor Approach to Data Compression,”
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,479
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Items such as declarations and court documents do not constitute patents or printed publications
`
`ACM, 1998)
`
`Dye (US 7,190,284 B1)
`
`Lafe (US 6,449,658 B1)
`
`Admissions (admitted prior art of the Fallon patent)
`
`3PR Request (Third-Party Requester’s request for reexamination filed on 28 May 2009)
`
`Storer Declaration (declaration of James Storer filed 28 May 2009 by 3PR)
`
`P0 Response (Patent Owner’s response filed 15 March 2010)
`
`Modestino Declaration (declaration of James Modestino filed 15 March 2010 by P0)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`2.
`
`The Information Disclosure Statement filed 15 March 2010 by P0 has been considered.
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1012
`Page 006
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/000,479
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`and are not prior art. These documents are therefore not appropriate for an Information
`
`Disclosure Statement, and the citations of these documents therein have been lined through.
`
`They will not be cited on the face of the patent.
`
`Priority
`
`These rejections are adopted essentially as proposed by 3PR in 3PR Request.
`
`(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed
`in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for
`patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an
`international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this
`subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United
`States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
`
`3.
`
`Fallon, US 7,161,506 B2, is a continuation of application number 10/016,355 (US
`
`6,624,761 B2 filed on 29 October 2001, which is a continuation-in-part of application number
`
`09/705,446 (US 6,309,424 B1) filed on 03 November 2000, which is a continuation of
`
`application 09/210,491 (US 6,195,024 B1) filed on 11 December 1998.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 1—9, 11, 16, 17, 20—23, 27, 39, 41-43, 69-73, 79, 81, 82, 84-90, 96, and 98 are
`
`supported for purposes of 35 USC. 112 by Figures 13-18 and the additional disclosure that first
`
`appeared in application number 10/016,355. Therefore, claims 1-9, 11, 16, 17, 20-23, 27, 39, 41-
`
`43, 69-73, 79, 81, 82, 84-90, 96, and 98 are entitled to a priority date of 29 October 2001.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`5.
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC. 102 that form the
`
`basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on
`sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
`
`Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 21-23, 43, 69, 72, 73, 79, and 81 are rejected under 35
`
`. 102(e) as being anticipated by Sebastian.
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1012
`Page 007
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/000,479
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`Regarding claim 1, Sebastian discloses a method for compressing data, comprising the
`
`steps of:
`
`analyzing a data block of an input data stream to identify one or more data types of the
`
`data block, the input data stream comprising a plurality of disparate data types (i.e., using
`
`elements including filters lOa—z and filter selection system 22 in encoder 3; column 1, lines 50-
`
`52; column 2, lines 1-42; column 3, lines 66-67; column 4, lines 1-25);
`
`performing content dependent data compression, if a data type of the data block is
`
`identified (column 2, lines 33-42, column 5, lines 14-18; column 6, lines 22-40);
`
`performing data compression with a single data compression encoder, if a data type of the
`
`(column 2, lines 43-47; column 3, lines 37-41).
`
`data block is not identified (i.e., Sebastian discloses a generic compression system; column 1,
`
`lines 55-60; column 4, lines 9-20).
`
`Regarding claims 2-4, Sebastian discloses appending a data compression type descriptor
`
`to a compressed data block and outputting the compressed data block with the appended data
`
`compression type descriptor (column 3, lines 31-36; column 5, lines 14-18).
`
`Regarding claim 5, Sebastian discloses that the performing content dependent data
`
`compression further comprises enabling at least one encoder associated to the data type to
`
`compress the data block (column 1, lines 55-57; column 2, lines 33-42).
`
`Regarding claim 8, Sebastian discloses that the performing content dependent data
`
`compression further comprises compressing the data block with cascaded encoders that are
`
`associated to the data type (column 17, lines 15-28; column 19, lines 31-48).
`
`Regarding claim 9, Sebastian discloses that the content dependent compression is lossless
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1012
`Page 008
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/000,479
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`Regarding claim 11, Sebastian discloses that the data compression is lossless (column 2,
`
`lines 43-47; column 3, lines 37-41; column 4, lines 9—20).
`
`Regarding claim 17, Sebastian discloses that the input stream is an uncompressed input
`
`stream (column 1, lines 19-23).
`
`Regarding claim 21, Sebastian discloses buffering the input data stream (i.e., using
`
`FILE_BUFFER; column 7, lines 25-27).
`
`Regarding claim 22, Sebastian discloses buffering a compressed data block (i.e., using
`
`ARRAY; column 7, lines 25-27).
`
`Regarding claim 23, Sebastian discloses outputting a compressed data block; and
`
`providing a compression type descriptor with the compressed data block representative of
`
`the type of compression used to provide the compressed data block (column 3, lines 31-36;
`
`column 5, lines 14—18).
`
`2, lines 1-42; column 3, lines 66-67; column 4, lines 1-25); and
`
`including filters 10a-z and filter selection system 22 in encoder 3; column 1, lines 50—52; column
`
`Regarding claim 43, Sebastian discloses that the performing content dependent data
`
`compression further comprises compressing the data block using at least two encoders (Figures 4
`
`and 5; column 18, lines 41-67; column 19, lines 1-12).
`
`Regarding claim 69, Sebastian discloses a method comprising:
`
`receiving a data block in an uncompressed form, the data block being included in a data
`
`stream (column 1, lines 19-23);
`
`analyzing the data block to determine a type of the data block (i.e., using elements
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1012
`Page 009
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/000,479 -
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`compressing the data block to provide a compressed data block, wherein if one or more
`
`encoders are associated to the type, compressing the data block with at least one of the one or
`
`compressing the data block with a data compression encoder (i.e., Sebastian discloses a generic
`
`compression system; column 1, lines 55-60; column 4, lines 9-20).
`
`Regarding claims 72 and 73, Sebastian discloses outputting the compressed data block
`
`with a descriptor representative of the compression technique used to compress the data block
`
`(column 3, lines 31-36; column 5, lines 14-18).
`
`Regarding claims 79 and 81, Sebastian discloses that the data compression encoder is
`
`lossless and the at least one of the one or more encoders is lossless (column 2, lines 43-47;
`
`column 3, lines 37—41; column 4, lines 9-20).
`
`7.
`
`Claims 69, 70, 72, 73, 79, 81, 82, 84, and 85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
`
`being anticipated by Franaszek.
`
`more encoders (column 2, lines 33-42; column 5, lines 14-18; column 6, lines 22-40) else
`
`encoders are associated to the type, compressing the data block with at least one of the one or
`
`These rejections are adopted essentially as proposed by 3PR in 3PR Request.
`
`Regarding claim 69, Franaszek discloses a method comprising:
`
`receiving a data block in an uncompressed form, the data block being, included in a data
`
`stream (Figure 2; column 4, lines 25-35);
`
`analyzing the data block to determine a type of the data block (column 5, lines 49-54);
`
`compressing the data block to provide a compressed data block, wherein if one or more
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1012
`Page 010
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/000,479
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`more encoders, else compressing the data block with a data compression encoder (column 5,
`
`lines 49—54).
`
`manner in which the invention was made.
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in
`section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
`having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the
`
`Regarding claim 70, Franaszek discloses outputting the data block in the uncompressed
`
`form if the compressed data block is indicative of data expansion (column 4, lines 55-59; column
`
`5, lines 19-38; column 6, lines 41-50).
`
`Regarding claims 72 and 73, Franaszek discloses outputting the compressed data block
`
`with a descriptor representative of the compression technique used to compress the data block
`
`(column 4, lines 55-59).
`
`Regarding claims 79 and 81, Franaszek discloses that the data compression encoder is
`
`lossless and the at least one of the one or more encoders is lossless (i.e., Franaszek discloses
`
`lossless LZl compression; column 7, lines 56-65).
`
`Regarding claim 82, Franaszek discloses that the at least one of the one or more encoders
`
`comprises a plurality of encoders provided in parallel (column 6, lines 29-32).
`
`Regarding claims 84 and 85, Franaszek discloses performing an analysis using the size
`
`of the compressed data block and a compression threshold to determine whether to output the
`
`data block in the uncompressed form or to output the compressed data block (column 5, lines 26-
`
`29).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`8.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1012
`Page 011
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/000,479
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`9.
`
`Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sebastian in
`
`view of Franazek or Reynar.
`
`Sebastian discloses a method as discussed above with regard to claim 1 but does not specifically
`
`count the size of the data block as taught by Franazek and Reynar in the method disclosed by
`
`This rejection is adopted essentially as proposed by 3PR in 3PR Request.
`
`Regarding claim 20, Sebastian discloses a method as discussed above with regard to
`
`claim 1 but does not specifically disclose counting the size of the data block.
`
`However, Franazek teaches a system that is related to the one described by Sebastian,
`
`including data compression, and teaches counting the size of the data block (column 5, lines 19-
`
`38). Reynar also teaches a system that is related to the one described by Sebastian, including data
`
`compression, and teaches counting the size of the data block (i.e., the length of the document or
`
`document portion; column 14, lines 66-67; column 15, lines 1-13).
`
`Regarding claim 20, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`Sebastian in order to advantageously compare the sizes of the block before and after compression
`
`and determine the efficiency of the compression.
`
`10.
`
`Claims 27 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Sebastian in view of CCITT V.42 his or Reynar.
`
`These rejections are adopted essentially as proposed by 3PR in 3PR Request.
`
`Regarding claim 27, Sebastian discloses a method as discussed above with regard to
`
`claim 1 but does not specifically disclose that the data compression further comprises providing a
`
`compressed data block from the single compression encoder so long as the compression ratio of
`
`the compressed data block exceeds a compression threshold. Similarly, regarding claim 39,
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1012
`Page 012
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/000,479
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`disclose providing a compression threshold and outputting a compressed data block that exceeds
`
`the compression threshold.
`
`MacLean teaches a system that is related to the one described by Sebastian, including data
`
`the art to provide a compression threshold and output a compressed data block that exceeds the
`
`However, CCITT V.42 bis teaches a system that is related to the one described by
`
`Sebastian, including data compression. CCITT V.42 bis teaches providing a compression
`
`threshold and outputting a compressed data block that exceeds the compression threshold at least
`
`in the sense that CCITT V.42 bis teaches determining the effectiveness of the compression and
`
`only outputting compressed data if compression would be effective (page 11, sections 7.8-7.8.2).
`
`Reynar also teaches'a system that is related to the one described by Sebastian, including data
`
`compression, and teaches providing a compressed data block from a compression encoder so
`
`long as the compression ratio of the compressed data block exceeds a compression threshold
`
`I (column 18, lines 9-21; column 23, lines 10—20).
`
`Regarding claims 27 and 39, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`threshold as taught by CCITT V.42 his or Reynar in the method disclosed by Sebastian in order
`
`to ensure that resources are used for compression only when compression would be effective.
`
`I 11.
`
`Claim 82 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sebastian in
`
`View of MacLean.
`
`This rejection is adopted essentially as proposed by 3PR in 3PR Request.
`
`Regarding claim 82, Sebastian discloses a method as discussed above with regard to
`
`claim 1, including one or more encoders, but does not specifically disclose that the at least one of
`
`the one or more encoders comprises a plurality of encoders provided in parallel. However,
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1012
`Page 013
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/000,479
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`compression, and further teaches a plurality of encoders provided in parallel (column 5, lines 24-
`
`27). Regarding claim 82, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`include a plurality of encoders provided in parallel as taught by MacLean in the method
`
`disclosed by Sebastian in order to maximize the processing efficiency of the compression
`
`system.
`
`the art to outputting the data block in the uncompressed form with a descriptor representative of
`
`form (i.e., as “pre-compression data”) with a descriptor representative of no compression if the
`
`12.
`
`Claims 70, 71, 84-90, 96 and 98 are rejected under 35 U..S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Sebastian in view of Kawashima.
`
`Since Kawashima W095/2943 7 A1 is in Japanese, all references below to its disclosure
`
`are made to its English-language equivalent document, US 5, 805, 93 2 A.
`
`These rejections are adopted essentially as proposed by 3PR in 3PR Request.
`
`Regarding claims 70 and 71, Sebastian discloses a method asdiscussed above with
`
`regard to claim 69 but does not specifically disclose outputting the data block in the
`
`uncompressed form with a descriptor representative of no compression if the compressed data
`
`block is indicative of data expansion.
`
`However, Kawashima teaches a system that is related to the one described by Sebastian,
`
`including data compression, and further teaches outputting the data block in the uncompressed
`
`compressed data block is indicative of data expansion (column 5, lines 61-67; column 6, lines 1-
`
`2; column 30, lines 14-18)
`
`Regarding claims 70 and 71, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1012
`Page 014
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/000,479
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`no compression as taught by Kawashima in the method disclosed by Sebastian in order to ensure
`
`that resources are used for compression only when compression would be effective.
`
`Regarding claims 84 and 85, Sebastian discloses a method as discussed above with
`
`regard to claim 69 but does not specifically disclose performing an analysis using the size of the
`
`compressed data block and a compression threshold to determine whether to output the data
`
`block in the uncompressed form or to output the compressed data block.
`
`However, Kawashima teaches performing an analysis using the size of the compressed
`
`data block and a compression threshold to determine whether to output the data block in the
`
`uncompressed form or to output the compressed data block (column 29, lines 43-67; column 30,
`
`lines 1-23)
`
`the art to determine whether to output the data block in an uncompressed form 'or to output the
`
`compressed data block as taught by as taught by Kawashima in the method disclosed by
`
`Sebastian in order to ensure that resources are used for compression only when compression
`
`would be effective.
`
`Regarding claim 86, Sebastian discloses a method comprising:
`
`receiving a data block, wherein the data block is included in a data stream (column 1,
`
`lines 19-23);
`
`outputting the data block in a compressed form (column 3, lines 31-36; column 5, lines
`
`Regarding claims 84 and 85, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`to compress the data block with content dependent data compression based on the type of the
`
`14-18);
`
`wherein outputting the data block in the compressed form comprises determining whether
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1012
`Page 015
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/000,479
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`data block (column 2, lines 1-42; column 5, lines 14-18; column 6, lines 22-40) or to compress
`
`the data block with a single data compression encoder (i.e., Sebastian discloses a generic
`
`compression system; column 1, lines 55-60; column 4, lines 9-20).
`
`Further regarding claim 86, Sebastian does not disclose determining whether to output
`
`the data block in received form or in a compressed form; and outputting the data block in
`
`received form or the compressed form based on the determination.
`
`However, Kawashima teaches a system that is related to the one described by Sebastian,
`
`including data compression, and further teaches determining whether to output the data block in
`
`received form (i.e., as “pre-compression data”) or in a compressed form; and outputting the data
`
`block in received form or the compressed form based on the determination (column 29, lines 43-
`
`67; column 30, lines 1-23).
`
`received form.
`
`the data block with content dependent data compression or the single data compression encoder
`
`Regarding claim 86, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`output the data block in received form or in compressed form based on a determination as taught
`
`by Kawashima in the method disclosed by Sebastian in order to ensure that resources are used
`
`for compression only when compression would be effective.
`
`Regarding claims 87 and 88, Sebastian discloses compressing the data block to provide
`
`the data block in the compressed form in accordance with the determination whether to compress
`
`(column 2, lines 1-42; column 4, lines 9-20) but does not specifically disclose outputting the data
`
`block in received form with a descriptor representative of no compression if the compressing
`
`causes the size the data block in the compressed form to expand with respect to the data block in
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1012
`Page 016
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/000,479
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`However, Kawashima also teaches a system that is related to the one described by
`
`Sebastian, including data compression, and further teaches outputting the data block in the
`
`disclose or fairly teach a method including all of the elements, steps, and limitations recited in
`
`uncompressed form (i.e., as “pre-compression data”) with a descriptor representative of no
`
`compression if the compressed data block is indicative of data expansion (column 5, lines 61—67;
`
`column 6, lines 1-2; column 30, lines 14-18)
`
`Regarding claims 87 and 88, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to outputting the data block in the uncompressed form with a descriptor representative of
`
`no compression as taught by Kawashima in the method disclosed by Sebastian in order to ensure
`
`that resources are used for compression only when compression would be effective.
`
`Regarding claims 89 and 90, Sebastian discloses compressing the data block to provide
`
`the data block in the compressed form in accordance with the determination whether to compress
`
`the data block with content dependent data compression or the single data compression encoder;
`
`and
`
`outputting the data block in the compressed form with a descriptor representative of the
`
`technique used to compress the data block to provide the data block in the compressed form
`
`(column 3, lines 31—36; column 5, lines 14-18).
`
`Regarding claims 96 and 98, Sebastian discloses that the single data compression
`
`encoder is lossless and at least one encoder. associated with the content dependent data
`
`compression is lossless (column 2, lines 43—47; column 3, lines 37-41; column 4, lines 9-20).
`
`Patentable Claims
`
`13.
`
`Claims 6, 7, 16, 41, and 42 are confirmed. The prior art of record does not specifically
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1012
`Page 017
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/000,479
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 15
`
`claims 6, 7, 16, 41, and 42 (including all of the limitations of claim 1 on which they depend),
`
`particularly including associating a plurality of encoders to the data type or compressing the data
`
`block with a plurality of encoders that are associated to the data type.
`
`Non-Adopted Proposed Rejections
`
`14.
`
`Non-adopted proposed rejections based on LBX
`
`None of the proposed rejections based on LBX as the primary reference are adopted.
`
`The proposed rejections of independent claims 1, 69, and 86 based on LBX (on pages 55-
`
`58, 68-70, and 78—82 of 3PR Request) are not adopted. Regarding claims 1, 69, and 86, LBX
`
`generally discloses compressing the data block with at least one or more encoders associated to
`
`the type (i.e., a selected algorithm for stream, bitmap, and pixmap compression as discussed on
`
`adopted because the proposed rejections of independent claims 1, 69, and 86 based on LBX are
`
`page 13 of LBX). However, LBX does not teach combining the above step with compressing the
`
`data block with a single data compression encoder if the type is not specifically identified and
`
`associated with a content-dependent encoder.
`
`In addition to 35 U.S.C 102 rejections of claims 1, 69, and 86 as being anticipated by
`
`LBX, 3PR also proposed 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 69, and 86 as being unpatentable
`
`over LBX in view of Admissions. These proposed rejections are also not adopted. 3PR alleged
`
`that Admissions generally teach-different compression techniques but did not show how LBX in
`
`view of Admissions teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 69, and 86 including the
`
`combination of content-dependent compression with content-independent compression.
`
`None of the proposed 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of dependent claims 2-
`
`5,9, 11, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 27, 39, 70-73, 79, 81, 84, 85, 87-90, 96, and 98 based on LBX are
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1012
`Page 018
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/000,479
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 16
`
`not adopted. Some of the proposed rejections of dependent claims based on LBX are also not
`
`adopted for at least the following additional reasons.
`
`In the table of contents and on page 54 of 3PR Request, 3PR proposed that claims 9, 20,
`
`73, 81, and 98 are “anticipated by LBX.” These proposed 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections are not
`
`adopted. The proposed 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claims 9, 81, and 98 on pages 60-61, 75-76,
`
`and 91-93 of 3PR Request do not describe how LBX discloses the claim limitations and only
`
`asserts that the limitations are taught by other references, LBX X and Images. The 35 U.S.C. 103
`
`rejections based on LBX X as a secondary reference are also not adopted because the LBX X
`
`document does not appear to have a date of publication. The proposed 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of
`
`claims 69 and 86.
`
`claim 20 on pages 63-64 of 3PR Request does not describe how LBX discloses the claim
`
`limitations and only asserts that the limitations are taught by other references, Held or CCITT
`
`V.42 bis. The proposed 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 73 on pages 73-74 of 3PR Request does
`
`not describe how LBX discloses the claim limitations and only asserts that the limitations are
`
`taught by other references, Kawashima or French.
`
`15.
`
`Non-adopted proposed rejections based on French
`
`3PR proposed 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 69 and 86 as being obvious over French
`
`in view of Admissions (see pages 93-103 and 110-121 of 3PR Request). These proposed 35
`
`U.S.C.103 rejections are not adopted. 3PR asserted that Admissions teach various limitations of
`
`claims 69 and 86 but further noted that French discloses these same limitations and did not
`
`indicate (according to 3PR) how French does not already completely meet the limitations of
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1012
`Page 019
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/000,479
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 17
`
`3PR has not set forth the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, as
`
`required by Graham v. John Deere, to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In 3PR
`
`Request, 3PR alleged that the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`without establishing the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3PR asserted
`
`anticipation rejections over French but further proposed obviousness rejections over French by
`
`merely adding that “Realtime admitted...” additional limitations already asserted to be disclosed
`
`by French (for example, see page 102 of 3PR Request). 3PR did not ascertain the differences
`
`between French and the claims at issue. Since these proposed obviousness rejections do not set
`
`without establishing the differences betwee