`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`COMMVAULT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. TBD
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR JAMES STORER, Ph.D.
`
`Commvault Ex. 1016
`Commvault v. Realtime
`US Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page No.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 1 
`
`INFORMATION AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED ................................. 5 
`
`III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................... 5 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 6 
`
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 7 
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................... 9 
`
`V. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ......................................................................... 10 
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’530 PATENT .......................................................... 10 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Brief Description ................................................................................. 10 
`
`Prosecution History Summary ............................................................ 15 
`
`VII. STATE OF THE ART AT THE TIME OF THE ’530 PATENT ................. 16 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Background ......................................................................................... 16 
`
`Chu (Ex. 1004) .................................................................................... 17 
`
`Fox (Ex. 1005) ..................................................................................... 20 
`
`D.  Wood (Ex. 1006) ................................................................................. 25 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`Rynderman (Ex. 1012) ........................................................................ 26 
`
`Clark (Ex. 1013) .................................................................................. 27 
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF THE ’530 PATENT CLAIMS ............................................ 28 
`
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1–5, 13–21, 23, and 25 are obvious over
`Chu in view of Fox .............................................................................. 28 
`
`1. 
`
`Reasons to combine Chu and Fox ............................................. 29 
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d.)
`
`Page No.
`
`2. 
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 33 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`“compression and storage occurs faster . . .”
`(Claim 1[g]) .................................................................... 33 
`
`Claim Chart ..................................................................... 40 
`
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 51 
`
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 51 
`
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 52 
`
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 52 
`
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 54 
`
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 54 
`
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 55 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`10.  Claims 16 and 17....................................................................... 56 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`Parallel encoders (Claims 16 and 17) ............................. 56 
`
`Claim Charts ................................................................... 57 
`
`11.  Claim 18 .................................................................................... 59 
`
`12.  Claim 19 .................................................................................... 59 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`“collection of multiple files” (Claim 19) ........................ 59 
`
`Claim Chart ..................................................................... 61 
`
`13.  Claims 20 and 21....................................................................... 63 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`“third” and “fourth data block” (Claims 20–21) ............ 63 
`
`Claim Charts ................................................................... 65 
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d.)
`
`Page No.
`
`14.  Claim 23 .................................................................................... 67 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`Video data limitation in Claim 23 .................................. 67 
`
`Claim Chart ..................................................................... 68 
`
`15.  Claim 25 .................................................................................... 68 
`
`B. 
`
`Ground 2: Claims 6–12 are obvious over Chu in view of Fox and
`Wood ................................................................................................... 70 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`Reasons to combine Chu, Fox, and Wood ................................ 70 
`
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 72 
`
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 73 
`
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 74 
`
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 74 
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 75 
`
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 76 
`
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 76 
`
`C. 
`
`Ground 3: Claims 22 and 26 are obvious over Chu in view of Fox
`and Rynderman .................................................................................... 77 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Reasons to combine Chu, Fox, and Rynderman ....................... 78 
`
`Claim 22 .................................................................................... 79 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`“analog video data stream” (Claim 22) .......................... 79 
`
`Claim Chart ..................................................................... 80 
`
`3. 
`
`Claim 26 .................................................................................... 81 
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d.)
`
`Page No.
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`adjusting the data rate (Claim 26) .................................. 81 
`
`Claim chart ...................................................................... 83 
`
`D.  Ground 4: Claim 24 is obvious over Chu in view of Fox,
`Rynderman and Clark .......................................................................... 85 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Reasons to combine Chu, Fox, Rynderman, and Clark ............ 86 
`
`Claim 24 .................................................................................... 90 
`
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 94 
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`I, Professor James Storer, declare and state as follows:
`
`I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Commvault Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) to
`
`provide expert opinions in connection with this proceeding. I have been asked by
`
`counsel to review relevant materials and render my expert opinion in connection
`
`with the petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 (“the ’530
`
`patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am a Professor at Brandeis University in the Computer Science
`
`Department. I am an expert in the field of computer algorithms, including data
`
`communications and network computing, data compression, data and image
`
`retrieval, storage and processing of large data sets, and image/video processing. I
`
`have studied, researched, and practiced in the field of computer science for more
`
`than 35 years, and have taught Computer Science at Brandeis since 1981.
`
`3.
`
`I received my Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in the field of
`
`Computer Science from Princeton University in 1979. I received my Masters of
`
`Arts (M.A.) degree in Computer Science from Princeton University and my
`
`Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree in Mathematics and Computer Science from
`
`Cornell University.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`4.
`
`After receiving my Ph.D. degree, I worked in industry as a researcher
`
`at AT&T Bell Laboratories from 1979 to 1981 before joining the faculty of
`
`Brandeis University.
`
`5.
`
`I have been involved in computer science research since 1976. My
`
`research has been funded by a variety of governmental agencies, including the
`
`National Science Foundation
`
`(NSF), National Aeronautics and Space
`
`Administration (NASA), and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
`
`(DARPA). In addition, I have received government Small Business Innovation
`
`Research (SBIR) funding, as well as numerous industrial grants.
`
`6.
`
`I regularly teach courses in software and hardware technology for data
`
`compression and communications (including text, images, video, and audio) at
`
`both the undergraduate and graduate level, and in my capacity as co-chair of the
`
`annual Data Compression Conference, I regularly referee academic papers in these
`
`areas. In addition, much of my consulting activity has been in the areas of
`
`software and hardware
`
`for consumer electronic devices,
`
`including cell
`
`phones/PDAs (including cellular technology), smartphones, digital cameras, digital
`
`video and audio recorders, and personal computers, as well as devices for
`
`communications over the Internet.
`
`7.
`
`I am the author of two books: An Introduction to Data Structures and
`
`Algorithms and Data Compression: Methods and Theory. Both books have been
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`used as references for undergraduate
`
`level computer science courses
`
`in
`
`universities. I am the editor or co-editor of four other books, including
`
`Hyperspectral Data Compression and Image and Text Compression.
`
`8.
`
`I have three issued U.S. patents that relate to computer software and
`
`hardware (two for which I am sole inventor and one for which I am co-inventor). I
`
`am the author or co-author of well over 100 articles and conference papers.
`
`9.
`
`In 1991, I founded the annual Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (IEEE) Data Compression Conference (DCC),
`
`the first major
`
`international conference devoted entirely to data compression, and have served as
`
`the conference chair since then. This conference continues to be the world’s
`
`premier venue devoted to data compression research and development.
`
`10.
`
`I routinely serve as referee for papers submitted to journals such as,
`
`for example, JACM, SICOMP, Theoretical CS, Computer Journal, J. Algorithms,
`
`Signal Processing, JPDC, Acta Informatica, Algorithmica, IPL, IPM, Networks,
`
`IEEE J. Robotics & Automation, IEEE Trans. Information Theory, IEEE Trans.
`
`Computers, IEEE Trans. Image Processing, Proceedings of the IEEE, IBM J. of
`
`R&D, and J. Computer and System Sciences.
`
`11.
`
`I have served as guest editor for a number of professional journals,
`
`including Proceedings of the IEEE, Journal of Visual Communication and Image
`
`Representation, and Information Processing and Management. I have served as a
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`program committee member for various conferences, including IEEE Data
`
`Compression Conference, IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory,
`
`Combinatorial Pattern Matching (CPM), International Conference on String
`
`Processing and Information Retrieval (SPIRE), Conference on Information and
`
`Knowledge Management (CIKM), Conference on Information Theory and
`
`Statistical Learning (ITSL), Sequences and Combinatorial Algorithms on Words,
`
`Dartmouth Institute for Advanced Graduate Studies Symposium (DAGS),
`
`International Conference on Language and Automata Theory and Applications
`
`(LATA), DIMACS Workshop on Data Compression
`
`in Networks and
`
`Applications, and Conference on Combinatorial Algorithms on Words.
`
`12. A copy of my latest curriculum vitae (CV) is submitted with this
`
`declaration as Ex. 1017.
`
`13.
`
`I am not an employee, consultant, or contractor of either party. I am
`
`being compensated for my time in connection with developing and rendering
`
`opinions in this matter at my customary rate of $785 per hour. My compensation
`
`is in no way contingent on the results of this or any other proceeding relating to the
`
`above-captioned patent.
`
`14. Between now and any time that I may be asked to testify further, I
`
`expect to continue my review, evaluation, and analysis of evidence presented
`
`before and/or at the hearing. I expect to review any additional declarations and
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`other evidence submitted by Patent Owner. I reserve the right to amend or
`
`supplement this declaration, as appropriate, after considering the opinions set forth
`
`by other experts. In the event that additional relevant information becomes
`
`available to me, I also reserve the right to review and consider that information in
`
`further developing or refining my opinions.
`
`II. INFORMATION AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`15.
`
`In order to render my opinions in this matter, I have carefully
`
`reviewed the specification and claims of the ’530 patent (Exs. 1001–1002). I have
`
`also reviewed the following materials:
`
`a. U.S. Patent No. 8,717,204
`
`b. U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728
`
`c. U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908
`
`d. Exhibits 1001–1015, 1018–1022.
`
`16. The above references are in addition to any other materials referenced
`
`directly or indirectly in this declaration. I expect to review additional materials that
`
`are provided by the parties as this proceeding progresses.
`
`III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`17.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`A. Claim Construction
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed that claim construction is a matter of law and
`
`that the final claim construction will ultimately be determined by the Board. For
`
`the purposes of my patentability analysis in this proceeding and with respect to the
`
`prior art, I have applied the broadest reasonable construction of the claim terms as
`
`they would be understood by one skilled in the relevant art. I understand that in a
`
`prior IPR, the Board has initially determined that no claim terms in the ’530 patent
`
`required construction. Ex. 1014 at 5.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation.
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed that, in an inter partes review, each claim of the
`
`’530 patent is to be given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification of the ’530 patent. This is the claim construction I applied in
`
`rendering my opinions.
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed that the claim terms of the ’530 patent were
`
`construed in prior litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. Exs. 1009, 1010. I
`
`understand that Commvault was not a party to that litigation.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`B. Obviousness
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`
`considered to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed. This means that, even if all of the requirements of a
`
`claim are not found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the
`
`differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a determination of whether
`
`a claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
`a. the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application
`
`was filed;
`
`b. the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`c. what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention
`
`and the prior art.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the teachings of two or
`
`more references may be combined in the same way as disclosed in the claims, if
`
`such a combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art. In determining whether a combination based on either a single reference or
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`multiple references would have been obvious, it is appropriate to consider, among
`
`other factors:
`
`a. whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known
`
`concepts combined in familiar ways, and when combined,
`
`would yield predictable results;
`
`b. whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a
`
`predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
`c. whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number
`
`of known design choices, and would have a reasonable
`
`expectation of success by those skilled in the art;
`
`d. whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a
`
`reason to combine known elements in the manner described in
`
`the claim;
`
`e. whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to
`
`make the modification or combination of elements claimed in
`
`the patent; and
`
`f. whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been
`
`used to improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary
`
`creativity, and is not an automaton.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`26.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`27. Given this standard, the Board should conclude, based on the
`
`information in this petition, that the challenged claims are merely a predictable
`
`combination of old elements that are used according to their established functions.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`28.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`’530 patent was effectively filed, is a person who has an undergraduate degree in
`
`computer science and two years’ industry experience or a graduate degree in the
`
`field of computer science.
`
`29. Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. I have supervised and directed
`
`many such persons over the course of my career. Further, I had at least those
`
`capabilities myself at the time the patent was filed.
`
`30. The analysis set forth herein evaluates obviousness consistent with the
`
`foregoing principles and through the eyes of one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of filing.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`V. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`31.
`
`It is my opinion that claims 1–5, 13–21, 23, and 25 of the ’530 patent
`
`are obvious over Chu in view of Fox under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`32.
`
`It is my opinion that claims 6–12 of the ’530 patent are obvious over
`
`Chu in view of Fox and Wood under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`33.
`
`It is my opinion that claims 22 and 26 of the ’530 patent are obvious
`
`over Chu in view of Fox and Rynderman under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`34.
`
`It is my opinion that claim 24 of the ’530 patent are obvious over Chu
`
`in view of Fox, Rynderman, and Clark under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’530 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Brief Description
`
`35. The ’530 patent, titled “Systems and Methods for Accelerated Data
`
`Storage and Retrieval,” was filed on October 26, 2006. I understand that the ’530
`
`patent claims priority to several U.S. patent applications, the earliest of which is
`
`U.S. Application No. 09/266,394, which was filed on March 11, 1999 and issued
`
`on July 29, 2003 as U.S. Patent No. 6,601,104.
`
`36. The ’530 patent is directed to systems and methods for providing
`
`“accelerated” data storage and retrieval (Ex. 1001 (‘530 Patent) at Abstract) and
`
`allegedly teaches systems and methods for improving data storage and retrieval
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`“bandwidth” by using lossless data compression and decompression (id. at 4:42–
`
`44).
`
`37. Figure 8 illustrates a detailed block diagram of a system for
`
`accelerated data storage according to the ’530 patent’s preferred embodiment:
`
`
`
`38. As shown above, the claimed “data storage accelerator” (10) receives
`
`an incoming “data stream” of “data blocks” and optionally stores the blocks in the
`
`“input data buffer” (15) and sends the blocks to the “data block counter” (20),
`
`where data blocks’ sizes are measured and recorded. See id. at 11:23–34. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that a buffer, such as the “input data
`
`buffer” (15), is typically random access memory (RAM). The ’530 patent states
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`that “the input buffer 15 and counter 20 are not required elements of the present
`
`invention.” Id. at 11:33–34.
`
`39. The ’530 patent explains that the data blocks received and compressed
`
`by the “data storage accelerator” may range in size (also referred to in the art as
`
`“length”) from “individual bits through complete files or collections of multiple
`
`files,” and that they may be either fixed or variable in size. Id. at 11:26–30. The
`
`“data block counter” “counts” or “otherwise enumerates the size” of the data
`
`blocks in “any convenient units including bits, bytes, words, double words.” Id. at
`
`11:30–33.
`
`40. Data compression is performed by the “encoder module” (25). Id. at
`
`11:40. This module may include any number of encoders (i.e., compression
`
`engines represented in Figure 8 as “E1,” E2,” E3,” and “En”) that may use any
`
`number of the lossless compression techniques “currently well known within the
`
`art” such as “run length, Huffman, Lempel-Ziv Dictionary Compression,
`
`arithmetic coding, data compaction, and data null suppression.” Id. at 11:40–46;
`
`see also id. at 12:41–46. The ’530 patent discloses that the compression techniques
`
`may be selected based upon their “ability to effectively encode different types of
`
`input data” (id. at 11:47–48), that more than one encoder may use the same
`
`compression technique (id. at 12:41–46), and the compression process may be
`
`performed in parallel or sequentially (id. at 11:62–64). In other words, using the
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`compression process described in the ’530 patent, either the same or different data
`
`blocks may be compressed by different encoders simultaneously (in parallel), or
`
`the same or different data blocks may be compressed by different encoders
`
`sequentially, one block at a time.
`
`41. After a data block is compressed by the “encoder module,” it may be
`
`buffered and its newly compressed size may be measured or “counted” by the
`
`“buffer/counter module” (30). Id. at 12:14–16. Next, the “compression ratio
`
`module” (35) determines the “compression ratio” obtained for each of the encoders
`
`by calculating the ratio of the size of the uncompressed data block to the size of the
`
`compressed block. Id. at 12:20–25. If, for example, a single data block is
`
`compressed by several different encoders E1 . . . En, each using a different
`
`compression technique, the “compression ratio module” may also compare each
`
`calculated ratio with an “a priori-specified compression ratio threshold limit” to
`
`determine if at least one of the compressed blocks were compressed at an equal or
`
`greater ratio. See id. at 12:25–30. If at least one of the compressed blocks was
`
`compressed at an equal or greater ratio, then the block compressed with the highest
`
`ratio is transmitted/stored. Id. at 12:46–49. If none of the compressed blocks were
`
`compressed at an equal or greater ratio, then the uncompressed block is
`
`transmitted/stored. Id. at 12:49–53.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`42. Before the uncompressed or compressed block is transmitted/stored,
`
`the “description module” or “compression type description” module (38)
`
`“appends” a descriptor to the block indicating, for a compressed block, the
`
`compression technique that was used, or else a “null” descriptor indicating that the
`
`block was not compressed. Id. at 12:33–59. The block, with its appended
`
`descriptor, is then transmitted/stored, and the descriptor is used for “subsequent
`
`data processing, storage, or transmittal.” Id.
`
`43. The ’530 patent describes that “accelerated data storage and retrieval”
`
`is achieved “by utilizing lossless data compression and decompression.” Id. at
`
`2:58–60. For example, data storage can be “accelerated” by compressing an input
`
`data stream at a compression ratio (e.g., 3:1) that is at least equal to the ratio of the
`
`input data transmission rate (e.g., 60 megabytes per second) to the data storage rate
`
`(e.g., 20 megabytes per second) “so as to provide continuous storage of the input
`
`data stream at the input data transmission rate.” Id. at 3:13–18; see also id. at 5:29–
`
`43. By compressing the data at this compression ratio, 60 megabytes worth of
`
`compressed data can be stored per second, even though the target storage device is
`
`capable of storing only 20 megabytes per second, thus “accelerating” the storage of
`
`data.
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`B.
`
`Prosecution History Summary
`
`44.
`
`I understand that after the ’530 patent was filed on October 26, 2006,
`
`the examiner initially rejected the claims for indefiniteness and double patenting.
`
`Ex. 1007 at 555–56 (June. 29, 2007 Office Action). The Applicant argued over the
`
`rejections (Ex. 1007 at 583–88) and the examiner allowed the claims. The
`
`examiner did not reject the claims over any prior art references. See generally
`
`Ex. 1007. The Applicant subsequently corrected the patent. Ex. 1001 (‘530
`
`Patent) at Certificate of Correction.
`
`45.
`
`I understand that the ’530 patent has undergone one reexamination,
`
`Reexamination No. 95/001,927 (“the ’927 reexamination”), filed on March 2,
`
`2012. I also understand that the examiner found independent Claims 1 and 24
`
`patentable. Ex. 1015 at 183–185 (Right of Appeal Notice, May 31, 2013). I have
`
`been informed that the examiner found that the primary references relied upon by
`
`the third party requester, U.S. Patent Nos. 4,956,808 to Aakre, 4,593,324 to
`
`Ohkubo, and 5,150,430 to Chu (“Chu ’430”)1, did not disclose the following
`
`limitation: “said compression and storage occurs faster than said data stream is
`
`able to be stored on said memory device in said received form.” Id. at 183–85. I
`
`
`1 I understand that Chu ’430 is a different patent than the Chu patent (U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,467,087) that I discuss later in this declaration.
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`have also been informed that while the examiner found that the references before
`
`him did disclose “fast” compression and storage systems, he concluded that none
`
`specified that those systems compressed and stored faster than storage of the
`
`uncompressed stream could otherwise occur. See id. at 183–86.
`
`VII. STATE OF THE ART AT THE TIME OF THE ’530 PATENT
`
`46. Compressing data blocks of a data stream with different compression
`
`techniques in order to compress and store the compressed data faster than in
`
`uncompressed form has been known in the field, as described in detail below.
`
`A.
`
`Background
`
`47.
`
` Using multiple
`
`compression
`
`techniques
`
`to
`
`accelerate
`
`the
`
`transmission/storage of data has been one of the primary applications of
`
`compression since compression was first used in the 1950s and 1960s, and
`
`continues today, as described in more detail below. See generally D. Huffman, “A
`
`Method for the Construction of Minimum-Redundancy Codes,” Proceedings of the
`
`IRE 40, 1098–1101 (1952); U.S. Patent No. 3,394,352 (“Wernikoff”); J. Ziv and
`
`A. Lempel, “A Universal Algorithm for Sequential Data Compression,” IEEE
`
`Transactions on Information Theory 23:3, 337–343 (1977); J. Ziv and A. Lempel,
`
`“Compression of Individual Sequences Via Variable-Rate Coding,” IEEE
`
`Transactions on Information Theory (1978). Use of multiple compression
`
`techniques is illustrated in Figure 1A of the Wernikoff patent, reproduced below:
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`In addition, rate control (adjusting system parameters to accommodate bandwidths)
`
`was well known in the art, and including in established standards (e.g., MPEG
`
`
`
`video compression standard).
`
`B. Chu (Ex. 1004)
`
`48.
`
`I understand that U.S. Patent No. 5,467,087 (“Chu,” Ex. 1004) issued
`
`on November 14, 1995. I understand that Chu is prior art to the ’530 patent. In my
`
`opinion, Chu is analogous art to the claimed invention. Chu is from the same field
`
`of endeavor as the ’530 Patent because, like the ’530 Patent, it concerned data
`
`compression techniques.
`
`49. Chu discloses a “data compression process and system that identifies
`
`the data type of an input data stream and then selects in response to the identified
`
`data type at least one data compression method from a set of data compression
`
`methods.” Ex. 1004 (Chu) at Abstract. Chu describes its system as “high speed
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`lossless data compression.” Id. at Title. Chu teaches that its system chooses the
`
`best compression ratio based on the data type in order to maximize compression.
`
`For example, Chu states:
`
`Because each data compression technique typically provides a
`
`different compression ratio for different data types, prior art
`
`compression systems are unable to maximize the data compression
`
`ratio when encountering a variety of input data types in the input data
`
`stream. There is therefore a need to provide an efficient and flexible
`
`data compression system that maximizes the data compression ratios
`
`according to the input data type detected.
`
`Id. at 3:48–56. Chu’s “[d]ata compression system 40 receives an input
`
`uncompressed data stream 10 and processes data stream 10 through a first data
`
`compression phase 42 using a first predefined data compression technique.
`
`Alternatively, prior art data compression system 40 may also provide a second data
`
`compression phase 44 using a second data compression technique also predefined
`
`by the design of data compression system 40.” Id. at 3:37–45. Chu selects the
`
`compression phases “in accordance with the data type.” Id. at 6:8–13. Chu uses
`
`Lempel-Ziv dictionary compression and Huffman encoding, among other data
`
`compression techniques. Id. at 6:40–47.
`
`-18-
`
`

`

`Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`50. After the data-type is identified, Chu also “encodes [the] data type
`
`information in any known standard used in the industry as means for denot