Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper No. 29
`Filed: Nov. 1, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY, INC., DELL INC., HEWLETT-PACKARD
`ENTERPRISE CO., HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC, TERADATA
`OPERATIONS, INC., ECHOSTAR CORPORATION, and HUGHES
`NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`_______________
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, J. JOHN LEE, and
`JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 001
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper No. 29
`Filed: Nov. 1, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY, INC., DELL INC., HEWLETT-PACKARD
`ENTERPRISE CO., HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC, TERADATA
`OPERATIONS, INC., ECHOSTAR CORPORATION, and HUGHES
`NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`_______________
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, J. JOHN LEE, and
`JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 001
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Riverbed Technology, Inc.; Dell Inc.; Hewlett-Packard Enterprise
`Co.; HP Enterprise Services, LLC; Teradata Operations, Inc.; Echostar
`Corporation; and Hughes Network Systems, LLC (“Petitioners”)1 filed a
`Petition (Paper 11, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 48
`and 49 of U.S. Patent No. 7,378,992 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’992 patent”).
`Realtime Data LLC, (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response
`(Paper 23, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),
`which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . .
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioners would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`Upon consideration of the Petition, the Petitions’ supporting evidence,
`and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we conclude Petitioners have
`established a reasonable likelihood it would prevail with respect to at least
`one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we
`institute an inter partes review.
`B. Related Proceedings
`Petitioners inform us of the following co-pending litigation matters
`that would affect or could be affected by a decision in this proceeding:
`Realtime Data LLC v Actian Corporation et al., E.D. Tex. Case No. 6:2015-
`cv-00463, Realtime Data LLC v Dropbox, Inc., E.D. Tex. Case No. 6:2015-
`cv-00465, Realtime Data LLC v EchoStar Corporation et al., E.D. Tex.
`
`
`1 SAP America, Inc. and Sybase, Inc. were originally included as petitioners,
`but their involvement as parties in this case has since been terminated. See
`Paper 28, 2–3.
`
`2
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 002
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`Case No. 6:2015-cv-00466, Realtime Data LLC v Oracle America, Inc., E.D.
`Tex. Case No. 6:2015-cv-00467, Realtime Data LLC v Riverbed
`Technology, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex. Case No. 6:2015-cv-00468, Realtime Data
`LLC v SAP America, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex. Case No. 6:2015-cv-00469,
`Realtime Data LLC v Teradata Corporation et al., N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:16-
`cv-01836, all filed on May 8, 2015, and still pending currently. Pet. 3, Paper
`22.
`
`Petitioners also inform us of previously filed petitions for inter partes
`reviews: IPR2016-00373 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,378,992); IPR2016-
`00375 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530); IPR2016-00376
`(challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530); and IPR2016-00377 (challenging
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908). Id.
`C. The ’992 Patent
`The ’992 patent, titled “Content Independent Data Compression
`Method and System,” discloses systems and methods for analyzing a data
`block and selecting a compression method to apply to that block. Ex. 1001,
`Title, Abst. The ’992 patent further discloses “fast and efficient data
`compression using a combination of content independent data compression
`and content dependent data compression.” Id. at 3:52–54. One embodiment
`of the ’992 patent is illustrated in Figure 13A reproduced below.
`
`3
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 003
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`
`
`
`As shown above in Figure 13A of the ’992 patent, the system receives an
`input data stream of data blocks. Id. at 16:7–12. Content dependent data
`recognition module 1300 analyzes the incoming data stream to recognize
`“data types” and other parameters indicative of the “data type/content.” Id.
`at 16:27–33. If module 1300 recognizes the data type of a given data block,
`module 1300 routes the block to content dependent encoder module 1320
`(id. at 16:36–40); if not, it routes the block to “content independent” (or
`“default”) encoder module 30 (id. at.3:54–55, 3:60–63, 16:4–7, 16:36–40,
`18:17–20).
`Content dependent encoder module 1320 comprises lossy or lossless
`compression encoders (id. at 16:45–53); content independent encoder
`module 30 comprises only lossless encoders (id. 16:60–62). Lossy encoders
`provide for an “inexact” representation of the original uncompressed data
`(id. at 1:64–67); lossless encoders provide for an “exact” representation (id.
`2:11–13). The ’992 patent teaches that “[e]ncoding techniques” may be
`selected “based upon their ability to effectively encode different types of
`input data.” Id. at 12:61–64.
`
`4
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 004
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`Another embodiment of the ’992 patent is illustrated in Figure 13B
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`As shown above in Figure 13B of the ’992 patent, “compression ratio
`module 1340, operatively connected to the content dependent output
`builder/counters 1330 and content independent buffer/counters 40
`determines the compression ratio obtained for each of the enabled encoders
`Dl . . . Dm and or El . . . En.” Id. at 17:49–54. It sets the compression ratio
`“by taking the ratio of the size of the input data block to the size of the
`output data block stored in the corresponding buffer/counters BCD1, BCD2,
`BCD3 . . . BCDm and or BCE1, BCE2, BCE3 . . . BCEn.” Id. at 17:54–57.
`
`D. Summary of the Prosecution History and the Challenged Claim
`
`The ’992 patent has undergone two reexamination proceedings. See
`Ex. 1003 (Request for Reexamination No. 95/000,478); Ex. 1004 (Request
`for Reexamination No. 95/001,928). During these reexaminations, twenty-
`one claims were cancelled, and six new claims were added. See Ex. 1001
`(’992 Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate). As noted above, Petitioners
`challenge claims 48 and 49 of the ’992 patent, which were added and
`
`5
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 005
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`allowed following reexamination. See id. Claim 48 is reproduced below
`(with paragraphing added):
`48. A computer implemented method comprising:
`receiving a first data block;
`associating at least one encoder to each one of several data
`types;
`analyzing data within the data block to identify a first data
`type of the data within the data block;
`compressing, if said first data type is the same as one of said
`several data types, said data block with said at least one encoder
`associated with said one of said several data types that is the same
`as said first data type to provide a compressed data block; and
`compressing, if said first data type is not the same as one of said
`several data types, said data block with a default encoder to
`provide said compressed data block,
`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.
`Ex. 1001, ’992 Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate, 2:7–25.
`E. The Evidence of Record
`Petitioners rely upon the following references, as well as the
`Declaration of Dr. Charles D. Creusere (Ex. 1011):
`Reference
`Patent/Printed Publication
`
`Exhibit
`
`1008
`1010
`1009
`
`Published/
`Issued Date
`Aug. 10, 2000
`Feb. 9, 1999
`Nov. 17, 1998
`
`WO 00/46688
`Wang
`Franaszek US Patent No. 5,870,036
`Matsubara US Patent No. 5,838,821
`
`6
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 006
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`F. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioners challenge the patentability of claims 48 and 49 of the ’992
`patent based on the following grounds:
`References
`Basis
`Wang, Matsubara, and
`§ 103
`Franaszek
`
`Claims Challenged
`48 and 49
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (“We
`conclude that the regulation represents a reasonable exercise of the
`rulemaking authority that Congress delegated to the Patent Office.”). Under
`that standard, and absent any special definitions, we give claim terms their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`Petitioners propose constructions for “data blocks,” “default encoder,”
`and “data compression type descriptor.” Pet. 13–16. At this stage of the
`proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioners’ proposed
`constructions. Prelim. Resp. 8. For purposes of this Decision and based on
`the record before us, we need not provide express constructions for any
`claim terms at this stage of the proceeding.
`
`7
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 007
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`B. Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness,
`i.e., secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`17–18 (1966).
`“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review
`petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the
`grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden never shifts to
`Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800
`F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek,
`Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of
`proof in inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioners cannot satisfy its
`burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.”
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`Thus, to prevail in an inter partes review, Petitioners must explain
`how the proposed combinations of prior art would have rendered the
`
`8
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 008
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`challenged claims unpatentable. At this preliminary stage, we determine
`whether the information presented in the Petition shows there is a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioners would prevail in establishing that one of the
`challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed combinations
`of prior art.
`We analyze the challenges presented in the Petition in accordance
`with the above-stated principles.
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
`time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. “The importance of
`resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of
`maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-
`Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
`Petitioners’ Declarant, Dr. Creusere, opines that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art relevant to the ’992 patent, and in the time period around
`2001, would have been a person with “at least a bachelor’s degree in
`computer science, computer engineering, electrical and computer
`engineering, electrical engineering, or electronics and at least two years of
`experience working with data compression or a graduate degree focusing in
`the field of data compression.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 24. Patent Owner does not offer
`any alternative explanation regarding who would qualify as a person of
`ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’992 patent.
`Based on our review of the ’992 patent, the types of problems and
`solutions described in the ’992 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony
`of Petitioners’ Declarant, we adopt and apply Dr. Creusere’s definition of a
`
`9
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 009
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention for
`purposes of this Decision. We also note that the applied prior art reflects the
`appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima
`v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 48 and 49 in View of Wang,
`Matsubara, and Franaszek
`Petitioners contend claims 48 and 49 of the ’992 patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Wang, Matsubara, and
`Franaszek. Pet. 24–51. Patent Owner disputes Petitioners’ contentions.
`Prelim. Resp. 9–34. For the reasons that follow, we determine Petitioners
`have demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to these claims.
`1. Overview of Wang
`Wang is titled “Intelligent Method for Computer File Compression.”
`Ex. 1008, Title. Wang teaches compressing automatically computer files
`containing different information types—such as text, image, and sound—
`using suitable lossy or lossless compression techniques. Id. at Abst. Wang
`explains that “[t]he method of the present invention may be used in any
`computer hardware and/or software system, such as in modem software or
`an e-mail system.” Id. at 3. One embodiment of Wang is shown in Figure 1,
`reproduced below.
`
`10
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 010
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`
`
`Wang specifically teaches analyzing a file’s (1) extension name and
`(2) control information to identify its file format. Id. at 4. If the file format
`is identified, then Wang determines whether the file is a simple file (i.e.,
`contains only a single data type, such as text, bitmap, wave, etc.) or a
`compound file (i.e., contains more than one type of data). Id. If the file is a
`simple file, Wang automatically recognizes its data type and automatically
`compresses the file using a compression algorithm suitable for that data
`type. Id. For example, Wang describes that “a lossless code, such as LZW,
`may be used for compression of character information,” and a “lossy code,
`such as JPEG or G.723, may be used for compression of image or audio
`information.” Id. If the file is a compound file, Wang teaches to decompose
`automatically the file into a plurality of units each containing only a single
`type of data. Id. at 5. According to Wang, each unit is then compressed
`
`11
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 011
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`using a compression algorithm suitable for the type of data in the same
`manner as a simple file. Id.
`Wang further teaches that if a file format cannot be identified or
`recognized by analyzing the file’s extension name and control information,
`then the file is compressed with a default lossless compression algorithm,
`such as an LZW lossless compression algorithm. Id. at 4.
`2. Overview of Franaszek
`Franaszek teaches systems and methods for compressing and
`decompressing data blocks using a plurality of optimal encoders. Ex. 1010,
`Abst. Franaszek teaches that representative samples of each block are tested
`to select an appropriate encoder to apply to the block. Id. Franaszek teaches
`recognizing the data type of incoming data blocks and then compressing the
`collection of data blocks using a plurality of optimal encoders for the
`different types of data. Id. at 4:30–36, 5:49–53.
`In one embodiment, Franaszek teaches a set of “default” compression
`algorithms, which are shown in Figure 2, reproduced below.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 012
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`Figure 2, above, illustrates data compressor 220 and data de-compressor
`270, with uncompressed data blocks 210 that can contain type information
`205. Id. at 4:25–31. According to Franaszek, the type information can be,
`for example, image data encoded in a given format, source code for a given
`programming language, etc. Id. at 4:32–34. Data blocks 210 are input to
`data compressor 220. Data compressor 220 and data de-compressor 270
`share compression method table 240 and memory 250 containing a number
`of dictionary blocks. Id. at 4:34–38. Compressor 220 selects a compression
`method to compress the data. Id. at 4:52–53. The compressor outputs
`compressed data blocks 230, with an index identifying the selected
`compression method. Id. at 4:55–57. Decompressor 270 decompresses the
`block using the specified method found in compression method table 240
`(using the compression method identifier as an index), and outputs
`uncompressed data blocks 280. Id. at 5:1–7. For example, compression
`method table 240 is shown in Figure 2 implementing a Lempel-Ziv
`compression method (LZ1).
`Figure 4A of Franaszek, reproduced below, shows the operation of
`data compressor 220 illustrated in Figure 2.
`
`13
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 013
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 4A, in step 401 when data compressor 220 receives an
`uncompressed data block, it first determines whether data “type”
`information (e.g., text, image, etc.) is available for the data block. Id. at
`5:49–50. If such information is available, then at step 404, the compression
`method list (CML) is set to a list of compression methods that have been
`preselected for that data type. Id. at 5:50–53. Otherwise, if no data type is
`available, in step 407 the CML is set to a default list of compression
`methods. Id. at 5:53–54. In instances when the data “type” information is
`available, then data compressor 220 uses the compression method “table”
`240 shown in Figure 2. See id. at 5:49–53.
`
`14
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 014
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`
`3. Matsubara
`Matsubara is titled “Method and Apparatus for Selecting Compression
`Method and for Compressing File Using the Selected Method.” Ex. 1009,
`Title. Matsubara teaches a method for automatically selecting a data
`compression method based on the characteristics of a file to be compressed.
`Id. at Abst., 1:9–14, 1:45–2:36, 3:46–4:21. In particular, Matsubara teaches
`analyzing a histogram of a file’s byte patterns to identify the file’s data type.
`Id. at 1:55–2:36. Based on the file’s data type, it selects a compression
`algorithm associated with the data type. Id. For example, Matsubara
`explains that if the values of a histogram of the file’s byte patterns are above
`a certain threshold and arranged around a central portion, then the file is an
`image file. Id. at 2:21–30. If the file is an image file, according to
`Matsubara, the gradation of the byte patterns is further examined to
`determine if the file should be compressed using JPEG or JBIG
`compression. Id. at 2:30–36. Matsubara further teaches that for some file
`types—such as font files, executable files, and text files—the compression
`technique must be completely reversible or lossless. Id. at 4:10–16. To this
`end, Matsubara explains that a lossless Lempel-Ziv compression encoder
`can be used. Id. at Abst., 6:5–13, 6:59–63, 7:32–34.
`Matsubara teaches that “[t]his invention may be conveniently
`implemented using a conventional general purpose digital computer or
`microprocessor programmed according to the teachings of the present
`specification” or “by the preparation of application specific integrated
`circuits, including one or more programmable logic arrays or by
`interconnecting an appropriate network of conventional component circuits,
`as will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art.” Id. at 8:28–40.
`
`15
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 015
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`
`4. Analysis
`Claim 48 generally requires (i) receiving a data block and analyzing
`the data within the data block to identify the data type by analyzing more
`than just a descriptor that is indicative of the data type of the data within the
`data block, and (ii) compressing the data with an encoder that is associated
`with that specific data type or compressing the data with a default encoder if
`there is no encoder associated with that specific data type. Ex. 1001, ’992
`Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate, 2:7–25. Claim 49 is similar but it
`further requires transmitting a data compression type descriptor, receiving
`the compressed data block and descriptor, and decompressing the data block
`based on the descriptor. Id. at 2:26–51.
`Petitioners contend that the combined teachings of Wang, Matsubara,
`and Franaszek would have rendered each limitation of claims 48 and 49 in
`the ’992 patent obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`the invention. Pet. 24–51. Patent Owner disputes Petitioners’ contention.
`Prelim. Resp. 9–34. Patent Owner specifically argues that Petitioners:
`(1) fail to explain how the cited references render the “analyzing” step
`obvious; (2) fail to show that the cited references teach to “exclude[ ]
`analyzing based only on a descriptor . . . ,” as recited in challenged claims 48
`and 49; (3) fail to explain what the recited “descriptor” is in Wang; and
`(4) fails to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
`reason to combine Wang, Matsubara, and Franaszek. After considering the
`parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioners presented
`sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the
`ground of obviousness in view of Wang, Matsubara, and Franaszek. We
`address the issues disputed by Patent Owner in more detail.
`
`16
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 016
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`
`a. “analyzing data within the data blocks” and “excludes
`analyzing based only on a descriptor . . .”
`
`Claims 48 and 49 recite “analyzing data within the data block” but
`“excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor that is indicative of the data
`type of the data within the data block.” See Inter Partes Reexamination
`Certificate, 2:7–51.
`Petitioners argue the combination of Wang, Matsubara, and Franaszek
`teaches or suggests “analyzing data within the data block” and the
`“excludes” clauses recited in challenged claims 48 and 49 because the
`references teach “wherein the analyzing” of data blocks “excludes analyzing
`the file based only on a descriptor that is indicative of the data type of the
`data within the data block.” Pet. 33–36, 42–43. Petitioners argue that Wang
`recognizes the format of a file by the extension name of the file and
`determines whether the file is a simple file or a compound file, then
`automatically recognizes the type of data contained in the file and
`automatically compresses the data using a compression algorithm suitable
`for the type of data identified. Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1008, 4; Ex. 1011 ¶¶
`105–108). Petitioners acknowledge that Wang does not explain specifically
`how the file’s data type is recognized automatically; therefore, Petitioners
`cite to Matsubara’s teaching of determining a file’s data type based on an
`analysis of its byte patterns. Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1009, 1:9–14, 1:45–2:36,
`3:46–4:21; Ex. 1011 ¶ 107). Specifically, Petitioners argue that Matsubara
`teaches this claim limitation because Matsubara constructs histograms of
`files based on the file’s byte patterns and analyzes the histograms to
`determine the type of data in the file. Id. (citing Ex. 1009, 1:55–2:36).
`
`17
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 017
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`As to what happens if the file’s data type is not recognized, Petitioners
`contend that Wang itself teaches that if the file format is not identified or
`recognized by analyzing the file, then the file is compressed with a default
`lossless compression algorithm, such as LZW. Id. at 38–39 (citing Ex. 1008,
`4; Ex. 1011 ¶ 112). Petitioners further contend that in the same context of
`determining what compression algorithm to apply based on the type of data,
`Franaszek explicitly teaches compressing a data block with a default
`compression algorithm when the data type is not identified. Pet. 39–40
`(citing Ex. 1010, 5:49–54; Ex. 1011 ¶ 115). More specifically, according to
`Petitioners, Franaszek explains that “if no data type is available, [then] the
`CML is set to a default list of compression methods.” Id. at 40 (citing
`Ex. 1010, 5:49–54).
`Petitioners then argue that Wang’s disclosure of a system that
`“operates to recognize the format of the file by the extension name of the file
`and in conjunction with the control information” indicates that “Wang’s
`method excludes analyzing the file.” Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1008, 4).
`Additionally, Petitioners argue that the combination of Wang, Matsubara,
`and Franaszek teaches or suggests analyzing the data within the data
`blocks—using Matsubara’s technique for determining the type of data in a
`file—to recognize when to apply a content independent compression
`algorithm. According to Petitioners, Matsubara’s technique for identifying
`the type of data in the file, which includes constructing a histogram based on
`the byte patterns occurring in a file and analyzing the histogram to determine
`the type of data in the file, excludes analyzing the file based only on a
`descriptor indicative of any characteristic, attribute, or parameter. Id. at 42–
`43 (citing Ex. 1009, 1:55–2:36; Ex. 1011 ¶ 120). Petitioners, therefore,
`
`18
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 018
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`conclude that the combination of Wang, Matsubara, and Franaszek teaches
`or suggests “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,” as recited in claims 48 and 49. Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 118–121).
`Patent Owner disputes Petitioners’ position, arguing that Wang,
`Matsubara, and Franaszek fail to teach or suggest “analyzing data within the
`data block” and the “excludes” clause recited in challenged claims 48 and
`49. Prelim. Resp. 9–10, 14–19. Patent Owner argues Petitioners
`specifically fail to show where the references perform the recited
`“analyzing” step. Id. at 14–19. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioners
`fail to explicitly define the term “descriptor” or how the references
`demonstrate “exclud[ing] analy[sis] based only on a descriptor.” Id. at 10–
`11. According to Patent Owner, Petitioners’ citations to Wang’s analysis of
`a file extension name and control information are insufficient to meet the
`claimed limitation, because file extension names and control information are
`the very type of descriptors excluded by the claim. Id. at 11.
`We agree with Patent Owner’s position that the file extension names
`and control information in Wang appear to be “descriptors” of a data block.
`Nevertheless, we are persuaded by Petitioners, at this stage of the
`proceeding, that the combination of Wang, Matsubara, and Franaszek
`teaches analyzing a data block based on something other than a descriptor
`that is indicative of any characteristic, attribute, or parameter within the data
`block.
`Specifically, we are persuaded that Wang recognizes the format of a
`file by the extension name of the file and determines whether the file is a
`
`19
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 019
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`simple file or a compound file, then teaches automatically recognizing the
`type of data contained in the file and automatically compressing the data
`using a compression algorithm suitable for the type of data identified. Pet. at
`34 (citing Ex. 1008, 4; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 105–108). In addition, we are persuaded
`Matsubara teaches determining a file’s data type based on an analysis of its
`byte patterns (i.e., something other than a descriptor) (Ex. 1009, 3:61–67),
`while Franaszek teaches analysis of a sample taken from uncompressed data
`appended to a data block and compressing a data block with a default
`compression algorithm when the data type is not identified (Ex. 1010, 4:30–
`35, 5:18–21, 5:53–54, Fig. 2). Furthermore, based on the testimony of Dr.
`Creusere (Ex. 1011 ¶ 116), we are satisfied on this record that the
`histograms of byte patterns of a file in Matsubara function as an analysis of a
`data block and not merely as a descriptor of the data block. Accordingly, on
`the record before us, we are satisfied the combination of Wang, Matsubara,
`and Franaszek teaches “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,” as recited in challenged claims 48 and 49.
`b. Rationale to Combine the Teachings of Wang, Matsubara,
`and Franaszek
`
`“[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the
`way the claimed new invention does.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. The Federal
`Circuit Court states:
`If all elements of a claim are found in the prior art, as is the case
`here, the factfinder must further consider the factual questions of
`whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated
`
`20
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 020
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`to combine those references, and whether in making that
`combination, a person of ordinary skill would have had a
`reasonable expectation of success.
`
`Dome Patent L.P. v. Lee, 799 F.3d 1372, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It is
`axiomatic that an asserted ground of obviousness must demonstrate
`articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal
`conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006);
`see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting Kahn). Mere conclusory statements are
`not sufficient. Id. Furthermore, “[c]are must be taken to avoid hindsight
`reconstruction by using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of
`prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to
`achieve the result of the claims in suit.’” Grain Processing Corp. v. Am.-
`Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quoting Orthopedic
`Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Based
`on our review of the cited prior references and the current evidence of
`record, we are persuaded Petitioners have shown sufficiently that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine Wang,
`Matsubara, and Franaszek to achieve the invention recited in the challenged
`claims.
`Petitioners contend that it would have been obvious to a person of
`skill in the art to combine Matsubara’s method of identifying a file’s data
`type in Wang’s method for automatically compressing computer files
`because the combination (a) would have been the use of a known technique
`to improve a similar method in the same way, (b) would have been a simple
`substitution of one known element (Wang’s technique for automatically
`recognizing the data type) for another (Matsubara’s technique for
`automatically recognizing the data type) to obtain predictable results, (c) was
`
`21
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1024
`Page 021
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00980
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`
`suggested by Wang’s express teaching to recognize automatically the type of
`data in a file, an
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
