UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC d/b/a IXO
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case: UNASSIGNED
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF CHARLES D. CREUSERE, PH.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 E2E
`
`
`
`1
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 001
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................... 1
`A. Educational Background ................................................................................ 1
`B. Professional Experience ................................................................................. 1
`C. Patents and Publications ................................................................................ 4
`D. Other Relevant Qualifications ....................................................................... 5
`II. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ...................................................................... 7
`III. MATERIALS RELIED UPON ..................................................................... 9
`IV.
`SUMMARY OF THE ’506 PATENT AND ITS TECHNICAL FIELD ...... 9
`A.
`’506 Patent Introduction ................................................................................ 9
`B. Technical Background and Overview of the ’506 Patent ............................10
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................15
`VI.
`ANALYSIS OF THE ’506 PATENT CLAIMS ..........................................16
`A. The Challenged Claims ................................................................................16
`B. Legal Standards ............................................................................................16
`VII.
`INVALIDITY BASED ON PRIOR ART UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 ..........21
`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
`2. Overview of Franaszek ............................................................................22
`3. Overview of Hsu ......................................................................................25
`4. Overview of Sebastian .............................................................................35
`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 data
`stream comprising a plurality of disparate data types” ................................43
`
`
`
`i
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 002
`
`

`

`c. Limitation 104[B]: “performing content dependent data compression
`with a content dependent data compression encoder if a data type of the
`data block is identified” ...............................................................................49
`i. Content Dependent Data Compression Encoder ...............................49
`ii.
`Performing Content Dependent Data Compression with a Content
`Dependent Data Compression Encoder if a Data Type of the Data Block
`is Identified ..............................................................................................53
`d. Limitation 104[C]: “performing data compression with a single data
`compression encoder, if a data type of the data block is not identified” .....56
`i. Single Data Compression Encoder ....................................................56
`ii.
`Performing Data Compression with a Single Data Compression
`Encoder if a Data Type of the Data Block is not Identified ....................66
`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
`block” ...........................................................................................................69
`6. Conclusion: Claim 104 Would Have Been Obvious ...............................78
`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
`and Sebastian. ...................................................................................................79
`a. Preamble: “A computer implemented method” ....................................79
`b. Limitation 105[A]: “receiving a data block in an uncompressed form,
`said data block being included in a data stream” .........................................79
`c. Limitation 105[B]: “analyzing data within the data block to determine a
`type of said data block” ................................................................................81
`d. Limitation 105[C]: “compressing said data block to provide a
`compressed data block” ...............................................................................81
`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
`compression encoder, and” ..........................................................................82
`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 a
`descriptor that is indicative of the data type of the data within the data
`block.” ..........................................................................................................92
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 003
`
`

`

`8. Conclusion: Claim 105 Would Have Been Obvious. ..............................92
`VIII. Secondary Considerations ............................................................................92
`IX.
`Conclusion ...................................................................................................93
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. .......94
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 004
`
`

`

`EXHIBITS CONSIDERED
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`1001
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`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”)
`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”)
`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”)
`
`1017
`
`1027
`
`1028
`1029
`1030
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 005
`
`

`

`I, Charles D. Creusere, hereby declare under penalty of perjury:
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of 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. Educational Background
`I received a bachelor of science degree in Electrical and Computer
`3.
`
`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
`
`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
`1
`
`
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 006
`
`

`

`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`2
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 007
`
`

`

`(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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`3
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 008
`
`

`

`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.
`
`Patents and Publications
`
`C.
`13. A listing of my publications is found in my curriculum vitae, a copy of
`
`which is attached as Appendix A to this declaration.
`
`14.
`
`I have published numerous peer reviewed journal articles and
`
`conference papers including 17 journal and 82 conference papers; the following are
`
`representative:
`
`
`
`4
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 009
`
`

`

`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. Other Relevant Qualifications
`In addition to the experience and publications listed above, I have also
`19.
`
`received the following awards and distinctions that are relevant to the subject
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 010
`
`

`

`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 Petitioner 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 1002
`Page 011
`
`

`

`II. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding the knowledge
`23.
`
`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 1002
`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 1002
`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
`In reaching the conclusions described in this declaration, I have relied
`30.
`
`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.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’506 PATENT AND ITS TECHNICAL FIELD
`’506 Patent Introduction
`A.
`32. The ’506 patent, titled “Systems and Methods for Data Compression
`
`Such as Content Dependent Data Compression,” was filed on September 22, 2003
`9
`
`
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 014
`
`

`

`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”).
`
`Technical Background and Overview of the ’506 Patent
`
`B.
`33. 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 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
`
`
`
`10
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 015
`
`

`

`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 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.
`11
`
`
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 016
`
`

`

`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),
`
`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 “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
`
`
`
`12
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 017
`
`

`

`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., 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.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 018
`
`

`

`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
`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;
`
`
`
`14
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 019
`
`

`

`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.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`I have been informed that for the purposes of this inter partes review,
`45.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 020
`
`

`

`VI. ANALYSIS OF THE ’506 PATENT CLAIMS
`A. The Challenged Claims
`I have considered claims 104 and 105 of the ’506 patent, which are
`47.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`16
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 021
`
`

`

`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 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
`
`
`
`17
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 022
`
`

`

`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 inventi