UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DELL INC., EMC CORPORATION, HEWLETT-PACKARD
`ENTERPRISE CO., AND HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC
`VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC d/b/a IXO
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176UNASSIGNED
`
`DECLARATION OF CHARLES D. CREUSERE, PhPH.D., IN SUPPORT
`OF THE PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 104
`AND 105 OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,161,506
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing SystemE2E
`
`1
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 001
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DELL INC., EMC CORPORATION, HEWLETT-PACKARD
`ENTERPRISE CO., AND HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC
`VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC d/b/a IXO
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176UNASSIGNED
`
`DECLARATION OF CHARLES D. CREUSERE, PhPH.D., IN SUPPORT
`OF THE PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 104
`AND 105 OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,161,506
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing SystemE2E
`
`1
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 001
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`1
`1
`A. Educational Background
`1
`B.
`Professional Experience
`4
`C. Patents and Publications
`5
`D. Other Relevant Qualifications
`7
`II. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`III.
`MATERIALS RELIED UPON
`9
`9
`IV.
`SUMMARY OF THE ’506 PATENT AND ITS TECHNICAL FIELD
`9
`A.
`’506 Patent Introduction
`10
`B. Technical Background and Overview of the ’506 Patent
`15
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`16
`VI.
`ANALYSIS OF THE ’506 PATENT CLAIMS
`A. The Challenged Claims
`16
`16
`B. Legal Standards
`21
`VII.
`INVALIDITY BASED ON PRIOR ART UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
`A. Claims 104 and 105 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in View
`of Hsu, or in the Alternative, Obvious Over Franaszek in View of Hsu and
`Sebastian.
`22
`1. Assumptions
`22
`22
`2. Overview of Franaszek
`25
`3. Overview of Hsu
`3635
`4. Overview of Sebastian
`5.
`Independent Claim 104 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in
`View of Hsu, or in the Alternative, Obvious Over Franaszek in View of Hsu
`and Sebastian.
`38
`a. Preamble: “A computer implemented method for compressing data” 38
`b. Limitation 104[A]: “analyzing data within a data block of an input
`data stream to identify one or more data types of the data block, the input
`4443
`data stream comprising a plurality of disparate data types”
`
`i
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 002
`
`
`
`c. Limitation 104[B]: “performing content dependent data compression
`with a content dependent data compression encoder if a data type of the
`5049
`data block is identified”
`5049
`i. Content Dependent Data Compression Encoder
`ii.
`Performing Content Dependent Data Compression with a Content
`Dependent Data Compression Encoder if a Data Type of the Data Block
`5453
`is Identified
`d. Limitation 104[C]: “performing data compression with a single data
`compression encoder, if a data type of the data block is not identified”
`5756
`5756
`i. Single Data Compression Encoder
`ii.
`Performing Data Compression with a Single Data Compression
`6766
`Encoder if a Data Type of the Data Block is not Identified
`e. Limitation 104[D]: “wherein the analyzing of the data within the data
`block to identify one or more data types excludes analyzing based only on
`a descriptor that is indicative of the data type of the data within the data
`7069
`block”
`7978
`6. Conclusion: Claim 104 Would Have Been Obvious
`7.
`Independent Claim 105 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in
`View of Hsu, or in the Alternative, Obvious Over Franaszek in View of Hsu
`8079
`and Sebastian.
`8079
`a. Preamble: “A computer implemented method”
`b. Limitation 105[A]: “receiving a data block in an uncompressed form,
`8079
`said data block being included in a data stream”
`c. Limitation 105[B]: “analyzing data within the data block to determine
`8281
`a type of said data block”
`d. Limitation 105[C]: “compressing said data block to provide a
`8281
`compressed data block”
`e. Limitation 105[D]: “wherein if one or more encoders are associated to
`said type, compressing said data block with at least one of said one or
`more encoders, otherwise compressing said data block with a default data
`8382
`compression encoder, and”
`f. Limitation 105[E]: “wherein the analyzing of the data within the data
`block to identify one or more data types excludes analyzing based only on
`
`ii
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 003
`
`
`
`a descriptor that is indicative of the data type of the data within the data
`9392
`block.”
`9392
`8. Conclusion: Claim 105 Would Have Been Obvious.
`9392
`VIII. Secondary Considerations
`9493
`IX.
`Conclusion
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 9594
`
`iii
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 004
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS CONSIDERED
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`1001
`
`1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506 (the “’506 patent”) (including portions of
`the prosecution history and reexamination histories of the ’506
`patent)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,870,036 to Franaszek et al. (“Franaszek”)
`
`1005
`
`W.H. Hsu, et al., Automatic Synthesis of Compression Techniques
`for Heterogeneous Files, Software Practice & Experience, Vol. 25,
`No. 10 pp. 1097-1116 (Oct. 1995) (“Hsu”)
`1009 MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL TERMS,
`Fifth Ed. (1993) (excerpts)
`1010 MICROSOFT PRESS COMPUTER DICTIONARY Third Ed. (1997)
`(excerpts)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 (“the ’728 patent”)
`
`1017
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`William Underwood, Extensions of the UNIX File Command and
`Magic File for File Type Identification, Technical Report
`ITTL/CSITD 09-02, Georgia Tech Research Institute (Sept. 2009).
`AT&T UNIX® PC UNIX System V User’s Manual, Volume 1 (1986)
`
`File(1): FreeBSD General Commands Manual (Dec. 8, 2000)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,253,264 to Sebastian (“Sebastian”)
`
`iv
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 005
`
`
`
`I, Charles D. Creusere, hereby declare under penalty of perjury:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Dell Inc., EMC Corporation,
`
`Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co., and HP Enterprise Services,Veritas
`
`Technologies LLC to provide my opinions regarding the validity of claims 104
`
`and 105 of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506 (“’506 patent”). I made an essentially
`
`identical declaration regarding the ’506 patent in support of the petition in
`
`IPR2017-00176.
`
`2.
`
`Appendix A is a true and correct copy of my Curriculum Vitae. This
`
`document provides further details about my background and experience.
`
`A.
`
`3.
`
`Educational Background
`
`I received a bachelor of science degree in Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering from the University of California at Davis in 1985. I received a
`
`masters of science degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the
`
`University of California at Santa Barbara in 1990, and I received my PhD. in
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering, also from the University of California at
`
`Santa Barbara, in 1993.
`
`B.
`
`4.
`
`Professional Experience
`
`I am currently a Full Professor in the Klipsch School of Electrical &
`
`Computer Engineering at New Mexico State University. I was an Assistant
`
`1
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 006
`
`
`
`Professor at New Mexico State from January 2000 until I became an Associate
`
`Professor in 2004. I have been a Full Professor since August 2010. My research
`
`and coursework at New Mexico State have focused on digital signal and image
`
`and video processing and, in particular, compression. My general area of
`
`expertise is in digital signal processing with a particular focus on applications
`
`related to compression: image, video, and audio.
`
`5.
`
`I have extensive experience in the technical areas of the ’506 patent
`
`including more than 30 years of experience with data compression, decompression,
`
`and data storage. My first exposure to the field of signal compression came in the
`
`fall of 1989 when I took ECE242 (Vector Quantization and Signal Compression)
`
`at UCSB from Prof. Allen Gersho—an internationally renowned researcher in the
`
`area of speech compression. As my PhD research progressed, I began to focus
`
`on transform-based compression (a general approach that includes JPEG) as my
`
`main application area. It was during this time that I read about the formative
`
`JPEG standard in the paper by Gregory Wallace published in the Proceedings of
`
`the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (“SPIE”) in June of 1990.
`
`My first paper dealing with image compression was published in 1991, and I have
`
`since written 24 other journal and conference papers in this area. I am the named
`
`inventor on 2 issued United States patents related to image or video compression.
`
`2
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 007
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Since joining the faculty of New Mexico State University in 2000, I
`
`have taught numerous classes at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. At
`
`the graduate level, I have taught the following: Image Processing (EE596), Digital
`
`Signal Processing (EE545), Signal Compression (EE573), Pattern Recognition
`
`(EE565), Advanced Linear Systems (EE555), Telemetering Systems (EE585),
`
`Information Theory (EE586), Adaptive Signal Processing (EE594), Multirate
`
`Signal Processing and Wavelets (EE595), and Neural Signal Processing (EE590).
`
`7.
`
`At the undergraduate level, I have taught the following courses:
`
`Engineering Analysis I (EE210), Signals and Systems I (EE312), Image
`
`Processing (EE446), Introduction to Digital Signal Processing (EE395), and
`
`Digital Communications (EE497).
`
`8.
`
`I am currently working with one PhD student who is studying the
`
`effect of image compression on a class of object detection and classification
`
`algorithms. She is currently applying JPEG compression in this study.
`
`9.
`
`From 1993 through 1999, I was a Researcher and Team Leader, at
`
`the Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake. At China Lake, my research efforts
`
`focused on high speed image and video compression technologies including
`
`embedded compression. I also developed improved encoders that enable the most
`
`critical data in images to be transmitted more efficiently over TCP/IP networks
`
`while retaining the highest possible fidelity.
`
`3
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 008
`
`
`
`10.
`
`From 1990 through 1993, I worked as a Research Assistant in the
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of
`
`California, Santa Barbara. In this position, I worked on subband coding
`
`(compression) and multirate filter bank theory. I also implemented real-time filter
`
`banks on a digital signal processer. In the summer of 1992, I worked at AT&T
`
`Bell labs where I developed and simulated new methods of extremely low bit rate
`
`video coding for video telephone applications.
`
`11.
`
`From 1985 through 1989, I worked as a Design Engineer at the
`
`Naval Weapons Center, China Lake. In this role, I built and tested the guidance
`
`electronics for various laser guided munitions. This project included mixed analog
`
`and digital circuit design as well as the programming of an embedded digital
`
`signal processor. I also developed software for an advanced video processor and
`
`studied ground target tracking.
`
`12.
`
`A listing of the cases (including trials before the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board) in which I have testified within the last four years is found
`
`following my CV in the attached Appendix A.
`
`C.
`
`13.
`
`Patents and Publications
`
`A listing of my publications is found in my curriculum vitae, a copy
`
`of which is attached as Appendix A to this declaration.
`
`4
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 009
`
`
`
`14.
`
`I have published numerous peer reviewed journal articles and
`
`conference papers including 17 journal and 82 conference papers; the following are
`
`representative:
`
`15.
`
`C.D. Creusere, “A new method of robust image compression based
`
`on the embedded zerotree wavelet algorithm,” IEEE Trans. on Image Processing,
`
`Vol 6, No. 10, Oct. 1997, pp. 1436-1442.
`
`16.
`
`C.D. Creusere, “Fast embedded compression for video,” IEEE Trans.
`
`on Image Processing, Vol. 8, No. 12, pp. 1811-16, December 1999.
`
`17.
`
`S. Kandadai and C.D. Creusere, “Scalable Audio Compression at
`
`Low Bitrates,” Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, IEEE Transactions on
`
`[see also Speech and Audio Processing, IEEE Transactions on], vol.16, no.5,
`
`pp.969-979, July 2008.
`
`18.
`
`I am a named co-inventor on two issued patents, both relating
`
`specifically to data compression. I am the listed inventor on U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,148,111 entitled “Parallel digital image compression system which exploits
`
`zerotree redundancies in wavelet coefficients” and U.S. Patent No. 6,466,698
`
`entitled “Efficient embedded image and video compression using lifted wavelets.”
`
`D.
`
`19.
`
`Other Relevant Qualifications
`
`In addition to the experience and publications listed above, I have
`
`also received the following awards and distinctions that are relevant to the subject
`
`5
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 010
`
`
`
`matter of this declaration. I am currently a Senior Area Editor for IEEE
`
`Transactions on Image Processing and have previously served as an Associate
`
`Editor for IEEE Transactions on Image Processing from 2010 through 2014. I
`
`have also served in this capacity from 2002 through 2005. From 2008-2013, I
`
`served as an Associate Editor for IEEE Transactions on Multimedia.
`
`20.
`
`In 2004, I served as the co-general chair for the IEEE Digital Signal
`
`Processing Workshop in Taos, New Mexico. In 2012 and 2014, I served as the
`
`co- technical chair for the Southwest Symposium on Image Analysis and
`
`Interpretation held in Sante Fe, New Mexico and San Diego, CA, respectively. In
`
`addition, I served as the technical chair for the 2015 International Telemetering
`
`Conference held in Las Vegas, NV. I am also a member of the technical program
`
`committees for the IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, the IEEE
`
`International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, and the
`
`IEEE Data Compression Conference.
`
`21.
`
`I am being compensated for my services. I have no financial interest
`
`in the outcome of this matter or on the pending litigations between
`
`PetitionersPetitioner and Realtime Data LLC (“Realtime”) in federal court.
`
`22.
`
`In developing my opinions below relating to the ’506 patent, I have
`
`considered the materials cited herein, including those itemized in the “Exhibits
`
`Considered” preceding this declaration.
`
`6
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 011
`
`
`
`II.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`23.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding the knowledge
`
`and understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art or “POSITA” as of the
`
`earliest effective filing date of the ’506 patent.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the factors considered in determining the ordinary
`
`level of skill in the art include: (i) the levels of education and experience of
`
`persons working in the field; (ii) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (iii) the sophistication of the technology. I understand that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is not a specific real individual, but rather a hypothetical
`
`individual having the qualities reflected by the factors above. This hypothetical
`
`person has knowledge of all prior art in the relevant field as if it were arranged on
`
`a workshop wall and takes from each reference what it would teach to a person
`
`having the skills of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`25.
`
`In my opinion, the field of art relevant to the ’506 patent is primarily
`
`related to data compression.
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged inventions claimed by the ’506 patent, would have a minimum of: (i) a
`
`bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical and
`
`computer engineering, electrical engineering, or electronics; and (ii) at least two
`
`years of experience working with data compression or a graduate degree focusing
`
`7
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 012
`
`
`
`in the field of data compression. Such experience would have led to familiarity
`
`with data compression systems in general and, more specifically, data compression
`
`and decompression techniques associated with various data types. As such,
`
`individuals with additional education or additional industrial experience could still
`
`be of ordinary skill in the art if that additional aspect compensates for a deficit in
`
`one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above.
`
`27.
`
`My opinions are based on my educational background, my experience
`
`in the field of art, the technical training required to reduce to practice the system
`
`described in the ’506 patent, the relevant prior art, my reading of the ’506 patent
`
`and technical literature, and my experience consulting in many cases involving
`
`related technology.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to
`
`have knowledge of all relevant prior art. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have been familiar with each of the references cited herein and the
`
`full range of teachings they contain. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art reviewing the various publications I discuss herein, would have been familiar
`
`with other references discussed in my declaration, and the full range of teachings
`
`they contain, at least because these prior art references address solutions to
`
`problems in data compression.
`
`8
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 013
`
`
`
`29.
`
`As discussed below, it is my understanding that claims 104 and 105
`
`of the ’506 Patent are entitled to an effective filing date no earlier than October
`
`29, 2001. Accordingly, the analysis set forth herein is based on the timeframe of
`
`the alleged invention being October 29, 2001. In October 2001, I would have
`
`qualified for or exceeded the level of skill required by the above definition, and I
`
`am in a position to opine on the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at least as of that date. However, I note that even if the ’506 patent claims
`
`were entitled to a December 11, 1998 filing date, my opinions would not be
`
`different in any material respect. When I refer to the understanding of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, I am referring to the understanding of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of these dates, and I refer to these dates as “the
`
`effective filing date.”
`
`III.
`
`MATERIALS RELIED UPON
`
`30.
`
`In reaching the conclusions described in this declaration, I have relied
`
`on the materials cited in the “Exhibits Considered” that precede my testimony in
`
`this declaration.
`
`31.
`
`My opinions are also based upon my education, training, research,
`
`knowledge, and personal and professional experience.
`
`9
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 014
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’506 PATENT AND ITS TECHNICAL FIELD
`
`A.
`
`32.
`
`’506 Patent Introduction
`
`The ’506 patent, titled “Systems and Methods for Data Compression
`
`Such as Content Dependent Data Compression,” was filed on September 22, 2003
`
`and issued on January 9, 2007. See Ex. 1001 (cover). The ’506 patent claims
`
`priority to several parent U.S. patent applications including Application No.
`
`10/016,355, filed on October 29, 2001, now U.S. Patent No. 6,624,761. The
`
`earliest application to which the ’506 patent claims priority is Application No.
`
`09/210,491 (“the ’491 application”), filed on December 11, 1998, and issued as
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,195,024 (the “’024 patent”).
`
`B.
`
`33.
`
`Technical Background and Overview of the ’506 Patent
`
`The ’506 patent explains that the method of Figure 1 (as described at
`
`column 3, lines 8-25) as well as the methods in U.S. Patent No. 5,467,087
`
`(“Chu”) are prior art. Id. at Figure 1; see also id. at 3:26-45. The methods
`
`disclosed in Chu include detecting the “data type” in an input data stream by
`
`analyzing a pre-defined number of bytes of that data stream, providing a data type
`
`identifier to that data, and then, based on that identifier, selecting one or more
`
`compression techniques optimal for that data type, such as a dictionary-type data
`
`compression technique followed by Huffman encoding, “with the intention of
`
`10
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 015
`
`
`
`producing the best available compression ratio for that particular data type.” Id.
`
`at 3:8-25.
`
`34.
`
`The ’506 patent states that the “technical field” is related to “data
`
`compression and decompression.” Ex. 1001 at 1:20-21. According to the ’506
`
`patent, “systems and methods for providing fast and efficient data compression
`
`using a combination of content independent data compression and content
`
`dependent data compression” are provided. Id. at 3:49-52.
`
`35.
`
`The content dependent data compression encoders 1320 and the
`
`content independent data compression encoders 30 of the relevant embodiments of
`
`the ’506 patent are illustrated in Figs. 13A and 13B, reproduced below:
`
`36.
`
`The ’506 patent explains that the process of selecting between
`
`content dependent data compression and content independent data compression
`
`includes analyzing a data block stored in a buffer “on a per block or multi-block
`
`11
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 016
`
`
`
`basis by the content dependent data recognition module.” Ex. 1001 at 18:29-44.
`
`The content dependent data recognition module “analyzes the incoming data
`
`stream 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 type/content of a given data block or the appropriate data
`
`compression algorithm or algorithms (in serial or in parallel) to be applied.” Id. at
`
`16:29-35.
`
`37.
`
`The ’506 patent describes that “a data file recognition list(s) or
`
`algorithm(s) 1310 module may be employed to hold and/or determine associations
`
`between recognized data parameters and appropriate algorithms.” Id. at 16:35-38.
`
`“Each data block that is recognized by the content data compression module 1300
`
`is routed to a content dependent encoder module 1320, if not the data is routed to
`
`the content independent encoder module 30.” Id. at 16:38-42.
`
`38.
`
`That is, “content independent data compression is applied to a given
`
`data block when the content of a data block cannot be identified or is not
`
`associated with a specific data compression algorithm.” Id. at 18:18-21; see also
`
`id. at 18:34-39. On the other hand, “[i]f the data stream content is recognized
`
`utilizing the recognition list(s) or algorithms(s) module 1310 (step 1434) the
`
`appropriate content dependent algorithms are enabled and initialized (step 1436),
`
`12
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 017
`
`
`
`and the data is routed to the content dependent encoder module 1320 and
`
`compressed….” Id. at 19:32-36.
`
`39.
`
`The content dependent encoder module 1320 comprises a set of
`
`encoders that may include any number of “lossy or lossless or lossy” encoders
`
`(compression techniques, methods, or algorithms), which are selected based on
`
`their “ability to effectively encode different types of input data.” Id. at 16:43-48;
`
`16:52-54. The content independent encoder module 30 comprises any number of
`
`strictly lossless compression algorithms. Id. at 16:58-63. Lossy compression
`
`algorithms provide for an “inexact” representation of the original uncompressed
`
`data (id. at 1:62-65) and lossless compression algorithms provide for an “exact”
`
`representation of such data (id. at 2:9-11).
`
`40.
`
`’506 patent recognizes that the following lossy and lossless encoding
`
`techniques were already well known within the art: “MPEG4, various voice
`
`codecs, MPEG3 (usually referred to as MP3 but standardized as MPEG Audio
`
`Layer 3), AC3, AAC” (lossy) and “run length, Huffman, Lempel-Ziv Dictionary
`
`Compression, arithmetic coding, data compaction, and data null suppression”
`
`(lossless). Id. at 16:48-52. Moreover, the ’506 explains that the well-known
`
`lossless compression algorithms may be used by either the content independent or
`
`content dependent compression encoders shown in Figure 13A above. See, e.g.,
`
`13
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 018
`
`
`
`id. at 16:43-53 (content dependent encoders), 16:58-65 (content independent
`
`encoders).
`
`41.
`
`Regardless of whether content dependent or content independent data
`
`compression is applied, the “appropriate data compression type descriptor” is
`
`appended to each compressed data block. Compare id. at 19:15-17 with id. at
`
`20:17-19. The ’506 patent explains that the “data compression type descriptor is
`
`defined as any recognizable data token or descriptor that indicates which data
`
`encoding technique has been applied to the data.” Id. at 19:17-19; see also
`
`20:19-21.
`
`42.
`
`Independent claims 104 and 105 of the ’506 patent are directed
`
`toward analyzing data to recognize when to apply a content independent
`
`compression algorithm and when to apply a content dependent compression
`
`algorithm.
`
`43.
`
`Claim 104 recites:
`
`A computer
`
`implemented method for compressing data,
`
`comprising:
`
`analyzing data within 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;
`
`performing content dependent data compression with a
`
`content dependent data compression encoder if a data type of
`
`the data block is identified; and
`
`14
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 019
`
`
`
`performing data compression with a single data
`
`compression encoder, if a data type of the data block is not
`
`identified,
`
`wherein the analyzing of the data within the data block
`
`to identify one or more data types excludes analyzing based
`
`only on a descriptor that is indicative of the data type of the
`
`data within the data block.
`
`44.
`
`Claim 105 recites:
`
`A computer implemented method comprising:
`
`receiving a data block in an uncompressed form, said
`
`data block being included in a data stream;
`
`analyzing data within the data block to determine a type
`
`of said data block; and
`
`compressing said data block to provide a compressed
`
`data block,
`
`wherein if one or more encoders are associated to said
`
`type, compressing said data block with at least one of said one
`
`or more encoders, otherwise compressing said data block with
`
`a default data compression encoder, and
`
`wherein the analyzing of the data within the data block
`
`to identify one or more data types excludes analyzing based
`
`only on a descriptor that is indicative of the data type of the
`
`data within the data block.
`
`15
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 020
`
`
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`45.
`
`I have been informed that for the purposes of this inter partes
`
`review, the standard for claim construction of terms within the claims of the
`
`patent is the “broadest reasonable construction” in light of the specification, which
`
`is different from the standard that applies in federal district court litigation.
`
`46.
`
`I apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the words of the claims
`
`when read in light of the specification (which includes the claims) from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art in rendering my opinions
`
`regarding the validity of claims 104 and 105 of the ’506 patent.
`
`VI.
`
`ANALYSIS OF THE ’506 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`A.
`
`47.
`
`The Challenged Claims
`
`I have considered claims 104 and 105 of the ’506 patent, which are
`
`reproduced in Appendix B attached hereto. I have also considered portions of the
`
`’506 patent prosecution history, including portions of the reexaminations of the
`
`’506 patent. Claims 104 and 105 are “independent claims,” in that they do not
`
`expressly reference other claims. Both challenged claims are method claims.
`
`B.
`
`48.
`
`Legal Standards
`
`I have been advised that if each and every element or step of a claim
`
`is disclosed within the “four corners” of a prior art reference, that claim is said to
`
`be “anticipated” by that single prior art reference and is invalid under
`
`16
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 021
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 because the claimed invention is not, in fact, new or novel. I
`
`understand that the standard for anticipation in an inter partes review proceeding
`
`is by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`49.
`
`I also have been advised that a prior art reference can disclose a
`
`claim feature if that feature is expressly described by that reference, or inherent
`
`from its disclosure. I understand that something is inherent from a prior art
`
`reference, if the missing descriptive matter must necessarily be present, and it
`
`would have been so recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art. I also
`
`understand that inherency cannot be established by probabilities or possibilities,
`
`and that the mere fact that something may result from a given set of circumstances
`
`is not sufficient to show inherency.
`
`50.
`
`I also have been advised that a prior art document can disclose a
`
`claim feature, and anticipate a claimed invention, if that feature is described in
`
`another document that has been incorporated by reference.
`
`51.
`
`I understand that a claim may be invalid under § 103(a) if the subject
`
`matter described by the claim as a whole would have been obvious to a
`
`hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art in view of a prior art reference, or
`
`in view of a combination of references at the time the claimed invention was
`
`made. Therefore, I understand that obviousness is determined from the
`
`perspective of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art, and that the
`
`17
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 022
`
`
`
`asserted claims of the patent should be read from the point of view of such a
`
`person at the time of claimed invention was made. I further understand that a
`
`hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is assumed to know and to have all
`
`relevant prior art in the field of endeavor covered by the patent in suit and all
`
`analogous prior art. I understand that the standard for obviousness in an inter
`
`partes review proceeding is by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`52.
`
`I also understand that an analysis of whether a claimed invention
`
`would have been obvious should be considered in light of the scope and content
`
`of the prior art, the differences (if any) between the prior art and the claimed
`
`invention, and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art involved. I
`
`understand as well that a prior art reference should be viewed as a whole.
`
`53.
`
`I understand that in considering whether an invention for a claimed
`
`combination would have been obvious, I may assess whether there are apparent
`
`reasons to combine known elements in the prior art in the manner claimed in view
`
`of interrelated teachings of multiple prior art references, the effects of demands
`
`known to the design community or present in the market place, and/or the
`
`background knowledge possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art. I also
`
`understand that other principles may be relied on in evaluating whether a claimed
`
`invention would have been obvious, and that these principles include the
`
`following:
`
`18
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 023
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
`
`results;
`
`When a device or technology is available in one field of endeavor,
`
`design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
`
`either in the same field or in a different one, so that if a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, the
`
`variation is likely obvious;
`
`If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would improve
`
`similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
`
`unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill;
`
`An explicit or implicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine
`
`two prior art references to form the claimed combination may
`
`demonstrate obviousness, but proof of obviousness does not depend
`
`on or require showing a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
`
`combine, see, e.g., Manual of Patent Examining Procedure §
`
`2143(G);
`
`Market demand, rather than scientific literature, can drive design
`
`trends and may show obviousness;
`
`19
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 024
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim would
`
`have been obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed
`
`purpose of the named inventor controls;
`
`One of the ways in which a patent’s subject can be proved obvious is
`
`by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem
`
`for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s
`
`claims;
`
`Any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
`
`invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for
`
`combining the elements in the manner claimed;
`
`“Common sense” teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses
`
`beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art will be able to fit the teachings of multiple
`
`patents together like pieces of a puzzle;
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity, and is not an automaton;
`
`A patent claim can be proved obvious by showing that the claimed
`
`combination of elements was “obvious
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
