`
`
`
`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 1-10, 15, 20,
`AND 24 OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 9,054,728
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 ’728 PATENT AND ITS TECHNICAL FIELD ....10
`A.
`’728 Patent Introduction ..............................................................................10
`B. Technical Background and Overview of the ’728 Patent ............................10
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................15
`VI.
`ANALYSIS OF THE ’728 PATENT CLAIMS ..........................................16
`A. The Challenged Claims ................................................................................16
`B. Legal Standards ............................................................................................17
`VII.
`INVALIDITY BASED ON PRIOR ART UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 ..........22
`A. Claims 1-3, 9, 10, 15, 20, and 24 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`Franaszek in View of Hsu, or in the Alternative, Obvious Over Franaszek in
`View of Hsu and Sebastian. .................................................................................23
`1. Assumptions .............................................................................................23
`2. Overview of Franaszek.............................................................................23
`3. Overview of Hsu ......................................................................................26
`4. Overview of Sebastian .............................................................................36
`5.
`Independent Claim 1 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 system for compressing data” ........................................39
`b. Limitation 1[A]: “a processor” .............................................................42
`c. Limitation 1[B]: “one or more content dependent data compression
`encoders,” .....................................................................................................46
`d. Limitation 1[C]: “a single data compression encoder” .........................50
`
`
`
`i
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 002
`
`
`
`e. Limitation 1[D]: “wherein the processor is configured[] to analyze data
`within a data block to identify one or more parameters or attributes of the
`data wherein the analyzing of the data within the data block to identify the
`one or more parameters or attributes of the data excludes analyzing based
`solely on a descriptor that is indicative of the one or more parameters or
`attributes of the data within the data block” ................................................60
`f. Limitation 1[E]: “the processor is configured . . . to perform content
`dependent data compression with the one or more content dependent data
`compression encoders if the one or more parameters or attributes of the
`data are identified” .......................................................................................72
`g. Limitation 1[F]: “the processor configured to[] . . . perform data
`compression with the single data compression encoder, if the one or more
`parameters or attributes of the data are not identified.”...............................76
`6. Conclusion: Claim 1 Would Have Been Obvious ...................................79
`7. Dependent Claim 2 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in View
`of Hsu, or in the Alternative, Obvious Over Franaszek in View of Hsu and
`Sebastian. .........................................................................................................79
`8. Dependent Claim 3 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in View
`of Hsu, or in the Alternative, Obvious Over Franaszek in View of Hsu and
`Further in View of Sebastian. ..........................................................................82
`9. Dependent Claims 9 and 10 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek
`in View of Hsu, or in the Alternative, Obvious Over Franaszek in View of
`Hsu and Sebastian. ...........................................................................................84
`10. Dependent Claim 15 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in
`View of Hsu, or in the Alternative, Obvious Over Franaszek in View of Hsu
`and Sebastian. ...................................................................................................87
`11. Dependent Claim 20 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in
`View of Hsu, or in the Alternative, Obvious Over Franaszek in View of Hsu
`and Sebastian. ...................................................................................................88
`12.
`Independent Claim 24 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in
`View of Hsu, or in the Alternative, Obvious Over Franaszek in View of Hsu
`and Sebastian. ...................................................................................................91
`a. Preamble: “A system for compressing data” ........................................91
`b. Limitation 24[A]: “a processor” ...........................................................91
`c. Limitation 24[B]: “one or more data compression encoders” ..............92
`d. Limitation 24[C]: “a default data compression encoder” .....................92
`ii
`
`
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 003
`
`
`
`e. Limitation 24[D]: “wherein the processor is configured[] to analyze
`data within a data block to identify one or more parameters or attributes of
`the data wherein the analyzing of the data within the data block to identify
`the one or more parameters or attributes of the data excludes analyzing
`based solely on a descriptor that is indicative of the one or more parameters
`or attributes of the data within the data block” ............................................95
`f. Limitation 24[E]: “the processor is configured . . . to compress the data
`block to provide a compressed data block, wherein if one or more encoders
`are associated with the one or more parameters or attributes of the data,
`compressing the data block with at least one of the one or more data
`compression encoders, otherwise compressing the data block with the
`default data compression encoder.” .............................................................96
`13. Conclusion: Claim 24 Would Have Been Obvious. ...........................107
`B. Dependent Claims 4-8 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in View
`of Hsu and Further In View of Aakre, or in the Alternative, Obvious Over
`Franaszek in View of Hsu and Sebastian and Further in View of Aakre. .........107
`1. Assumptions ...........................................................................................107
`2. Overview of Aakre .................................................................................107
`3. Dependent Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in View
`of Hsu and Further In View of Aakre, or in the Alternative, Obvious Over
`Franaszek in View of Hsu and Sebastian and Further in View of Aakre. .....109
`4. Dependent Claim 5-6 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in
`View of Hsu and Further In View of Aakre, or in the Alternative, Obvious
`Over Franaszek in View of Hsu and Sebastian and Further in View of Aakre.
`
`113
`5. Dependent Claims 7-8 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in
`View of Hsu and Further In View of Aakre, or in the Alternative, Obvious
`Over Franaszek in View of Hsu and Sebastian and Further in View of Aakre.
`
`114
`VIII. Secondary Considerations ..........................................................................116
`IX.
`Conclusion .................................................................................................117
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. .....118
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 004
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS CONSIDERED
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`1001
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 (the “’728 patent”) (including portions of
`the prosecution history of the ’728 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. 7,161,506 (“the ’506 patent” or “the parent ’506
`patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,956,808 to Aakre et al. (“Aakre”)
`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
`
`1021
`
`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 1-10, 15, 20, and 24 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,054,728 (“’728 patent”). I made an essentially identical declaration
`
`regarding the ’728 patent in support of the petition in IPR2017-00179.
`
`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 ’728 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 Petitioners and
`
`Realtime Data LLC (“Realtime”) in federal court.
`
`22.
`
`In developing my opinions below relating to the ’728 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 ’728 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 ’728 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 ’728 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 ’728 patent, the relevant prior art, my reading of the ’728 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 1, 2-10, 15, 20,
`
`and 24 of the ’728 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
`
`’728 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.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 014
`
`
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’728 PATENT AND ITS TECHNICAL FIELD
`’728 Patent Introduction
`A.
`32. The ’728 patent, titled “Data Compression Systems and Methods,”
`
`was filed on September 24, 2014 and issued on June 9, 2015. See Ex. 1001
`
`(cover). The ’728 patent claims priority to several parent U.S. patent applications
`
`including among others Application No. 13/154,211, filed on June 6, 2011, now
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,643,513, Application No. 10/668,768, filed on September 22,
`
`2003, now U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506 (Ex. 1017), and Application No. 10/016,355,
`
`filed on October 29, 2001, now U.S. Patent No. 6,624,761 (Ex. 1018). The earliest
`
`application to which the ’728 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”) (Ex. 1019).
`
`Technical Background and Overview of the ’728 Patent
`
`B.
`33. The ’728 patent explains that the method of Figure 1 (as described at
`
`column 3, lines 16-48) 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 3:20-52. 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
`
`
`
`10
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 015
`
`
`
`technique followed by Huffman encoding, “with the intention of producing the best
`
`available compression ratio for that particular data type.” Id. at 3:20-36.
`
`34. The ’728 patent states that the “technical field” is related to “data
`
`compression and decompression.” Ex. 1001 at 1:34-35. According to the ’728
`
`patent, “systems and methods for providing fast and efficient data compression
`
`using a combination of content independent data compression and content
`
`dependent data compression” are provided. Id. at 3:59-62.
`
`35. The content dependent data compression encoders 1320 and the
`
`content independent data compression encoders 30 of the relevant embodiments of
`
`the ’728 patent are illustrated in Figs. 13A and 13B, reproduced below:
`
`
`36. The ’728 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 18:9-25. The content
`11
`
`
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 016
`
`
`
`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 16:22-28.
`
`37. The ’728 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 16:28-31.
`
`“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 16:31-34.
`
`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 18:9-12; see also id.
`
`at 18:25-29. 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
`
`19:19-26.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 017
`
`
`
`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 16:35-40; 16:44-46. The
`
`content independent encoder module 30 comprises any number of strictly lossless
`
`compression algorithms. Id. at 16:50-55. Lossy compression algorithms provide
`
`for an “inexact” representation of the original uncompressed data (id. at 2:7-10) and
`
`lossless compression algorithms provide for an “exact” representation of such data
`
`(id. at 2:21-23).
`
`40.
`
`’728 patent recognizes that the following lossy and lossless encoding
`
`techniques were already well known within the art: “MPEG4, various voice codecs,
`
`MPEG3, AC3, AAC” (lossy) and “run length, Huffman, Lempel-Ziv Dictionary
`
`Compression, arithmetic coding, data compaction, and data null suppression”
`
`(lossless). Id. at 16:40-44. Moreover, the ’728 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 16:35-44 (content dependent encoders), 16:50-57 (content independent
`
`encoders).
`
`41. Regardless of whether content dependent or content independent data
`
`compression is applied, the “appropriate data compression type descriptor” is
`
`
`
`13
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 018
`
`
`
`appended to each compressed data block. Compare id. at 19:5-6 with id. at 20:5-6.
`
`The ’728 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 19:6-9; see also 20:6-9.
`
`42.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 24 of the ’728 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 1 recites:
`A system for compressing data comprising:
`a processor;
`one or more content dependent data compression encoders; and
`a single data compression encoder;
`wherein the processor is configured:
`to analyze data within a data block to identify one or more
`parameters or attributes of the data wherein the analyzing of the data
`within the data block to identify the one or more parameters or
`attributes of the data excludes analyzing based solely on a descriptor
`that is indicative of the one or more parameters or attributes of the
`data within the data block;
`to perform content dependent data compression with the one or
`more content dependent data compression encoders if the one or more
`parameters or attributes of the data are identified; and
`
`
`
`14
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 019
`
`
`
`to perform data compression with the single data compression
`encoder, if the one or more parameters or attributes of the data are not
`identified.
`44. Claim 24 recites:
`A system for compressing data comprising:
`a processor;
`one or more data compression encoders; and
`a default data compression encoder;
`wherein the processor is configured:
`to analyze data within a data block to identify one or more
`parameters or attributes of the data wherein the analyzing of the data
`within the data block to identify the one or more parameters or
`attributes of the data excludes analyzing based solely on a descriptor
`that is indicative of the one or more parameters or attributes of the
`data within the data block; and
`to compress the data block to provide a compressed data block,
`wherein if one or more encoders are associated with the one or more
`parameters or attributes of the data, compressing the data block with
`at least one of the one or more data compression encoders, otherwise
`compressing the data block with the default data compression
`encoder.
`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.
`15
`
`
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 020
`
`
`
`46.
`
`I have been asked to assume that “the data block being included in
`
`one or more data blocks” as recited in dependent claims 2 and 3 means “the data
`
`block being included among a group of one or more data blocks.” Based on my
`
`review of the ’728 patent, I did not see any evidence supporting the interpretation
`
`that this limitation means that a data block is contained within “one or more” other
`
`“data blocks.”
`
`47. With the exception of those terms that I was instructed to apply a
`
`particular construction to, 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 1-10, 15, 20, and 24 of th