throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC d/b/a IXO
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case: UNASSIGNED
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF CHARLES D. CREUSERE, PH.D., IN SUPPORT OF
`THE PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket