Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper No. 24
`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,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 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 1025
`Page 001
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper No. 24
`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,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 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 1025
`Page 001
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 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 10, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–4,
`6, 10–16, 18–20, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,513 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’513 patent”). Realtime Data LLC, (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a
`Preliminary Response (Paper 18, “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-
`
`
`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 23, 2–3.
`
`2
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 002
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`cv-00465, Realtime Data LLC v EchoStar Corporation et al., E.D. Tex.
`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.
`Petitioners also inform us of previously filed petitions for inter partes
`reviews: IPR2016-00373 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,378,992 B2);
`IPR2016-00375 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 B2); IPR2016-
`00376 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 B2); and IPR2016-00377
`(challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 B2). Id.
`C. The ’513 Patent
`The ’513 patent, titled “Data Compression Systems and Methods,”
`discloses systems and methods for analyzing a data block and selecting a
`compression method to apply to that block. Ex. 1001, Title, Abst. The ’513
`patent further discloses “fast and efficient data compression using a
`combination of content independent data compression and content
`dependent data compression.” Id. at 3:55–58. One embodiment of the ’513
`patent is illustrated in Figure 13A reproduced below.
`
`3
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 003
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`
`
`
`As shown above in Figure 13A of the ’513 patent, the system receives an
`input data stream of data blocks. Id. at 15:63–16:5. 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 16:15–21. 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 16:24–26); if not, it routes the block to “content independent” (or
`“default”) encoder module 30 (id. at.3:66–67, 4:30–35, 15:56–63, 16:26–27,
`18:17–25).
`Content dependent encoder module 1320 comprises lossy or lossless
`compression encoders (id. at 16:28–37); content independent encoder
`module 30 comprises only lossless encoders (id. at 16:43–50). Lossy
`encoders provide for an “inexact” representation of the original
`uncompressed data (id. at 2:4–7); lossless encoders provide for an “exact”
`representation (id. at 2:18–20). The ’513 patent teaches that “[e]ncoding
`techniques” may be selected “based upon their ability to effectively encode
`different types of input data.” Id. at 12:54–56.
`
`4
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 004
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`Another embodiment of the ’513 patent is illustrated in Figure 13B
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`As shown above in Figure 13B of the ’513 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
`and[/]or El . . . En.” Id. at 17:28–42. The compression ratio is set “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 17:39–42.
`
`D. Challenged Claims
`
`As noted above, Petitioners challenge claims 1–4, 6, 10–16, 18–20,
`and 22 of the ’513 patent, of which claims 1 and 15 are the only independent
`claims. Claims 1 and 15 are illustrative of the challenged claims and are
`reproduced below (with paragraphing added):
`1. A method of compressing a plurality of data blocks,
`comprising:
`
`5
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 005
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`analyzing the plurality of data blocks to recognize when an
`appropriate content independent compression algorithm is to be
`applied to the plurality of data blocks;
`applying the appropriate content independent data compression
`algorithm to a portion of the plurality of data blocks to provide a
`compressed data portion;
`analyzing a data block from another portion of the plurality of
`data blocks for recognition of any characteristic, attribute, or
`parameter that is indicative of an appropriate content dependent
`algorithm to apply to the data block; and
`applying the appropriate content dependent data compression
`algorithm to the data block to provide a compressed data block
`when the characteristic, attribute, or parameter is identified,
`wherein the analyzing the plurality of data blocks to recognize
`when
`the appropriate content
`independent compression
`algorithm is to be applied excludes analyzing based only on a
`descriptor indicative of the any characteristic, attribute, or
`parameter, and
`wherein the analyzing the data block to recognize the any
`characteristic, attribute, or parameter excludes analyzing based
`only on the descriptor.
`Ex. 1001, 26:21–46.
`15. A device for compressing data comprising:
`a first circuit configured to analyze a plurality of data blocks to
`recognize when an appropriate content independent compression
`algorithm is to be applied to the plurality of data blocks;
`a second circuit configured to apply the appropriate content
`independent data compression algorithm to a portion of the
`plurality of data blocks to provide a compressed data portion;
`a third circuit configured to analyze a data block from another
`portion of the plurality of data blocks for recognition of any
`characteristic, attribute, or parameter that is indicative of an
`appropriate content dependent algorithm to apply to the data
`block; and
`
`6
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 006
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`a fourth circuit configured to apply the appropriate content
`dependent data compression algorithm to the data block to
`provide a compressed data block when the any characteristic,
`attribute, or parameter is identified,
`wherein the first circuit is further configured to analyze the
`plurality of data blocks to recognize when the appropriate
`content independent compression algorithm is to be applied by
`excluding analyzing based only on a descriptor indicative of the
`any characteristic, attribute, or parameter, and
`wherein the third circuit is further configured to analyze the data
`block to recognize the any characteristic, attribute, or parameter
`by excluding analyzing based only on the descriptor.
`Id. at 27:32–28:19.
`
`E. The Evidence of Record
`Petitioners rely upon the following references, as well as the
`Declaration of Dr. Charles D. Creusere (Ex. 1013):
`Reference
`Patent/Printed Publication
`
`WO 00/46688
`Wang
`Franaszek US Patent No. 5,870,036
`Matsubara US Patent No. 5,838,821
`
`Published/
`Issued Date
`Aug. 10, 2000
`Feb. 9, 1999
`Nov. 17, 1998
`
`Exhibit
`
`1009
`1011
`1010
`
`F. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioners challenge the patentability of the ’513 patent based on the
`following grounds:
`References
`Wang, Matsubara, and
`Franaszek
`
`Claims Challenged
`1–4, 6, 10–16, 18–20,
`and 22
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`7
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 007
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`
`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,” “content
`independent compression algorithm,” and “content dependent compression
`algorithm.” Pet. 13–17. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does
`not contest Petitioners’ proposed constructions. Prelim. Resp. 9. 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.
`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
`
`8
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 008
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`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
`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.
`
`9
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 009
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`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 ’513 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. 1013 ¶ 25. Patent Owner does not offer
`any alternative explanation regarding who would qualify as a person of
`ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’513 patent.
`Based on our review of the ’513 patent, the types of problems and
`solutions described in the ’513 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony
`of Petitioners’ Declarant, we adopt and apply Dr. Creusere’s definition of a
`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).
`
`10
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 010
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–4, 6, 10–16, 18–20, and 22 in
`View of Wang, Matsubara, and Franaszek
`Petitioners contend claims 1–4, 6, 10–16, 18–20, and 22 of the ’513
`patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Wang, Matsubara,
`and Franaszek. Pet. 22–62. Patent Owner disputes Petitioners’ contention.
`Prelim. Resp. 10–45. 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. 1009, Title. Wang teaches automatically compressing 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.
`
`11
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 011
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 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
`automatically decompose 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
`
`12
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 012
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`compressed 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. 1011,
`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.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 013
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 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.
`
`14
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 014
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 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.
`
`15
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 015
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`
`3. Matsubara
`Matsubara is titled “Method and Apparatus for Selecting Compression
`Method and for Compressing File Using the Selected Method.” Ex. 1010,
`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.
`
`16
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 016
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`
`4. Analysis
`a. Cited Art as Applied to Claim 1
`Petitioners contend that the combined teachings of Wang, Matsubara,
`and Franaszek would have rendered each limitation of claim 1 in the ’513
`patent obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention. Pet. 30–42. Patent Owner disputes Petitioners’ contention.
`Prelim. Resp. 10–13, 15–17, 19–21. Patent Owner specifically argues that
`Petitioners: (1) fail to show that the cited references teach to “exclude[ ]
`analyzing based only on a descriptor . . . ,” as recited in challenged claim 1;
`(2) fail to explain what the recited “descriptor” is in Wang; (3) fail to
`identify the claimed “a portion of the plurality of data blocks to provide a
`compressed data portion” and “a data block from another portion of the
`plurality of data blocks”; (4) inappropriately read out the required “a portion
`of the plurality of data blocks” and never identify what in Wang meets the
`claim limitation; and (5) fail 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.
`(1) “exclude[ ] analyzing based only on a
`descriptor . . . ,”
`Claim 1 recites “analyzing the plurality of data blocks,” and the claim
`includes two wherein clauses, each limiting the analyzing step. Generally,
`each wherein clause limits the analyzing step to “exclude[] analyzing based
`only on a descriptor indicative of the any characteristic, attribute, or
`parameter.” Ex. 1001, 26:39–46.
`
`17
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 017
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`Petitioners argue the combination of Wang, Matsubara, and Franaszek
`teaches or suggests “analyzing the plurality of data blocks” and both wherein
`clauses recited in challenged claim 1 because the references teach “wherein
`the analyzing” of data blocks “excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor
`indicative of the any characteristic, attribute, or parameter.” Pet. 31–35, 40–
`42. 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 31–32 (citing Ex.
`1009, 4; Ex. 1013 ¶ 115). 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 32 (citing Ex. 1010,
`3:61–67; Ex. 1013 ¶ 116). Specifically, Petitioners argue that Matsubara
`teaches this claim limitation because Matsubara constructs histograms of
`files based on the files’ byte patterns and analyzes the histograms to
`determine the type of data in the file. Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1010, 1:55–2:36).
`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 33 (citing Ex. 1009, 4;
`Ex. 1013 ¶ 117). 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. 33 (citing
`
`18
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 018
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`Ex. 1011, 5:53–54; Ex. 1013 ¶ 117). 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. (citing Ex. 1011,
`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 clearly excludes analyzing the file.” Id. at 40–42 (citing Ex. 1009,
`4). Additionally, Petitioners argue that the combination of Wang,
`Matsubara, and Franaszek teaches or suggests analyzing the plurality of 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 41
`(citing Ex. 1010, 1:55–2:36; Ex. 1013 ¶ 135). Petitioners, therefore,
`conclude that the combination of Wang, Matsubara, and Franaszek teaches
`or suggests “wherein the analyzing the plurality of data blocks to recognize
`when the appropriate content independent compression algorithm is to be
`applied excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor indicative of the any
`characteristic, attribute, or parameter,” as recited in claim 1. Id. (citing Ex.
`1013 ¶¶ 132–138).
`Patent Owner disputes Petitioners’ position, arguing that Wang,
`Matsubara, and Franaszek fail to teach or suggest “analyzing the plurality of
`
`19
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 019
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`data blocks” and both wherein clauses recited in challenged claim 1. Prelim.
`Resp. 10–12. Patent Owner argues Petitioners specifically fail to show
`where the references perform the recited “analyzing” step. Id. at 11–12.
`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 12. 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 13.
`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 Matsubara teaches determining a
`file’s data type based on an analysis of its byte patterns (Ex. 1010, 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. 1011, 4:30–
`35, 5:18–21, 5:53–54, Fig. 2). Furthermore, based on the testimony of Dr.
`Creusere (Ex. 1013 ¶ 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,
`
`20
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 020
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`and Franaszek teaches “wherein the analyzing the plurality of data blocks to
`recognize when the appropriate content independent compression algorithm
`is to be applied excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor indicative of
`the any characteristic, attribute, or parameter,” and “wherein the analyzing
`the data block to recognize the any characteristic, attribute, or parameter
`excludes analyzing based only on the descriptor,” as recited in challenged
`claim 1.
`
`(2) “a portion of the plurality of data blocks to provide a
`compressed data portion” and “a data block from
`another portion of the plurality of data blocks”
`Petitioners argue Wang, Matsubara, and Franaszek teach “a portion of
`the plurality of data blocks to provide a compressed data portion” and “a
`data block from another portion of the plurality of data blocks” as required
`by challenged claim 1. Pet. 31–39.
`Petitioners argue that Wang meets these claim limitations because
`Wang’s “system operates to recognize the format of the file by the extension
`name of the file and in conjunction with the control information of the file to
`determine whether or not the file format is known.” Id. at 31 (citing Ex.
`1009, 4). According to Petitioners, if the file format is not known or
`recognized, then the system “will automatically compress the file with a
`lossless code, such as LZW.” Id. Petitioners then concludes that Wang
`teaches or suggests analyzing the plurality of data blocks to recognize when
`to apply a content independent compression algorithm, such as LZW, that is
`to be applied when the data type or content of the data block is not
`identified, recognized, or associated with a specific data compression
`algorithm. Id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 114).
`
`21
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 021
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00978
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`Patent Owner contests Petitioners’ position, arguing that Petitioners
`never identify with particularity and clarity what teachings of Wang or
`Matsubara allegedly map to “a data block,” “another portion of the plurality
`of data blocks,” and “a data block from another portion.” Prelim. Resp. 15–
`16. According to Patent Owner, Petitioners’ reliance of Wang’s disclosure
`of processing of a
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
