UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________________
`
`HULU, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________________________________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00864
`U.S. Patent 9,462,074
`____________________________________________
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF HENRY H. HOUH, PH.D.
`
`Hulu 1016
`Hulu v. Sound View
`IPR2018-00864
`
`i
`
`
`
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________________
`
`HULU, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________________________________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00864
`U.S. Patent 9,462,074
`____________________________________________
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF HENRY H. HOUH, PH.D.
`
`Hulu 1016
`Hulu v. Sound View
`IPR2018-00864
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`I, Henry H. Houh, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`Introduction
`1.
`My name is Henry H. Houh. I have been retained by counsel for
`
`I.
`
`Hulu, LLC. to serve as a technical expert in this inter partes review proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`My background is set forth in paragraphs 1-20 of my initial
`
`Declaration in this proceeding (Ex. 1002). As I explained in paragraphs 1-20 and
`
`30-32 of my initial Declaration, although my qualifications and experience exceed
`
`those of the hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art, my analysis and
`
`opinions regarding the U.S. Patent 9,462,074 (“the ’074 patent”) have been based
`
`on the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of March 2000.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide expert testimony in this present
`
`declaration in reply to issues raised by the Patent Owner’s Response (“POR” or
`
`“Response”) and the Declaration of Mark T. Jones, Ph.D. (Ex. 2018).
`
`4.
`
`I note that on September 10, 2018, the Board instituted proceedings
`
`on the ’074 patent finding that the Petition presented a sufficient showing that the
`
`challenged claims 3, 5, and 9 were invalid as obvious in view of the teachings of
`
`Wolf and Aggarwal, as well as the teachings of Ueno in view of Aggarwal and
`
`Dan. Decision on Institution (“DI”), 24, 34-35. The Board also determined that
`
`“[a]s a matter of law … with respect to claims 3 and 9, only one of the conditional
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`limitations needs to be satisfied in the prior art to render the claim anticipated or
`
`obvious.” DI, 9.
`
`5.
`
`In this declaration I will address why I disagree with the arguments
`
`for patentability made by the Patent Owner (“PO”) in its Response and Dr. Jones in
`
`his declaration.
`
`6.
`
`As I set forth in my initial Declaration and confirm below, the
`
`challenged claims of the ’074 patent would have been obvious under the cited prior
`
`art references in both the Wolf and Ueno based grounds.
`
`II. Wolf Renders Each of the Challenged Claims Obvious
`7.
`I understand that the Board granted this inter partes review upon
`
`finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that the
`
`first conditional limitation is taught by Wolf. DI, 21. My initial declaration, filed
`
`in support of that Petition, describes how Wolf teaches the first conditional
`
`limitation of the independent challenged claims 3 and 9. Ex. 1002, ¶¶93-120, 137.
`
`8.
`
`Neither PO nor Dr. Jones appear to rebut the finding that Wolf teaches
`
`the first conditional limitation, thereby rendering challenged claims 3 and 9
`
`obvious. Ex. 1015, 41:4-13 (Dr. Jones confirming his recollection that his
`
`declaration includes no analysis or opinion with respect to Wolf if only the first
`
`conditional limitation is required). Accordingly, and as I describe in detail in my
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`initial Declaration, claims 3 and 9 are unpatentable and should be canceled as
`
`obvious.
`
`9.
`
`I also understand that PO has presented an argument that the Board’s
`
`application of the Schulhauser case to this inter partes review is in appropriate.
`
`While I do not attempt to give my opinion on that legal conclusion, it is my
`
`opinion that even if the broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification were not controlled by the Schulhauser case cited by the Board,
`
`construing claims 3 and 9 based on the ’074 patent’s specification would have led
`
`to the same result. For example, the ’074 patent describes the mutually exclusive
`
`prongs at 10:48-50 and 10:58-60. As the ’074 patent explains, “data distribution
`
`concerns how SM objects are stored and replaced on disk at each HS 22-24 in the
`
`network 14, upon receiving an SM object.” Ex. 1001, 10:24-27. The ’074
`
`specification at 10:48-50 describes that “[w]hen an SM object is streamed to a HS
`
`22-24, it is stored on disk chunk-by-chunk, continuously from the beginning of the
`
`SM object.” At 10:58-60, however, the ’074 specification introduces methods for
`
`“overwriting chunks on a HS disk when there is insufficient disk space available.”
`
`Given this disclosure, a POSITA having a basic understanding of cache operation
`
`would understand that an incoming SM object would either (i) be stored if there is
`
`space available, or (ii) not be stored until sufficient disk space was made available
`
`using the disclosed replacement strategies. Thus, the mutual exclusivity of the
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`claimed first and second conditional limitations is readily apparent from the ’074
`
`specification itself.
`
`10.
`
`Should the Board determine that the Schulhauser case does not apply
`
`to the challenged claims in this case, then, as described in my initial Declaration
`
`and confirmed below, Wolf and Aggarwal still render the challenged claims
`
`obvious.
`
`A. Wolf “Delet[es]” or “Replac[es] a Portion of Each of Said SM
`Objects,” as Recited by the Challenged Claims
`11. As explained in my initial Declaration, Wolf discloses replacing
`
`eligible segments of one or more media objects at the bottom of the LRU cache
`
`with segments of the incoming media object, where only segments with segment
`
`numbers above the KMIN threshold are eligible for replacement. Ex. 1002, ¶129;
`
`Ex. 1003, 6:26-29, 7:24-42. In particular, “at step 920 [in Wolf’s Figure 9], the
`
`highest number segment from the object at the bottom of the LRU stack is
`
`deleted.” Ex. 1003, 7:9-13. Notably, “[t]he process is repeated until enough buffer
`
`space becomes available to cache the jth segment of object O.” Id. In other words,
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`and as plainly shown in Figure 9 of Wolf, step 920 discards (i.e., “deletes”)
`
`segments from “objects” (plural) until enough cache space is made available.
`
`Annotated Figure 9 of Wolf emphasizing that process step 920 operates on
`
`multiple “objects” in the LRU stack
`
`12.
`
`I understand that PO argues that “Wolf’s single-object method is, if
`
`anything, like the ‘first method’ discussed in the ’074 Patent specification, and
`
`does not disclose or even suggest the ‘second method’ reflected in the techniques
`
`of the challenged Claims,” which ignores that Wolf expressly describes repeating
`
`its process and operating on “objects.” POR, 27. Not only is PO’s position
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`incorrect in view of the plain language of Wolf’s disclosure, but it is also
`
`misleading in view of the ’074 patent’s own specification.
`
`13.
`
`In particular, with respect to its “second method,” the ’074 patent
`
`describes overwriting “chunks of the victim set” of objects “in a round robin
`
`fashion.” Ex. 1001, 10:66-11:2. Round robin algorithms, in general, operate one
`
`at a time on one object of a set of objects. Upon operating on the last object in the
`
`set, they return to operate on the first object in the set, and continue operations in
`
`this way in a cyclical manner. For example, round robin algorithms are used in
`
`operating systems where each running process (application) is given an equal
`
`amount of time running on the single processor, one at a time, until they are
`
`complete. In this round robin algorithm, each process is granted a time slice of the
`
`processor. Ex. 1017, pp. 535-539. The round robin algorithm may cycle back to
`
`the same process quickly enough so that each process appears to be running on its
`
`own dedicated processor (for example, watching a movie while simultaneously
`
`copying files, using a web browser, and acting as a web server). However, the
`
`processes are indeed being executed one at a time in a cyclical (round robin)
`
`manner. Id. See also, Ex. 1015, 24:8-12 (“Q. What does the term round-robin
`
`mean to you? A. It typically means moving across a set of alternatives, one after
`
`the other, and often [repeating] -- moving across those alternatives.”), 25:14-18
`
`(“Q. So in the context of that general description, what did you mean by
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`‘repeating’? A. Going back through the alternatives once they're exhausted.”) In
`
`other words, the ’074 patent also describes a technique—with respect to its
`
`“second method”—in which objects that “form a victim set” are processed one
`
`object at a time in a round robin fashion, just as in Wolf.
`
`14.
`
`This is consistent with how the ’074 patent recites its claims. In
`
`challenged independent claim 3, the ’074 patent recites the step of “replacing a
`
`portion of each of said SM objects belonging to said composed set with chunks of
`
`said received SM object.” Ex. 1001, 16:63-65. Claim 4, which depends upon
`
`claim 3, later specifies the “replacing step” as “replacing a chunk … from each of
`
`said SM objects belonging to said composed set in a round-robin basis.” Id.,
`
`16:66-17:3. Claim 4 confirms that the ’074 patent contemplates a “round robin”
`
`(i.e., single object at a time, repeating in a cycle) processing scheme for its “second
`
`method.”
`
`15.
`
`This understanding is also consistent with how data is accessed on
`
`magnetic disk. In particular, data on magnetic disk is accessed by physically
`
`rotating the disk continuously under the disk head—which reads and/or writes data
`
`and can move perpendicularly to the motion of the disk under it—until the disk
`
`head is positioned on the particular disk block (a fractional portion of the disk
`
`storage) where the data is going to be read from or written to. Large files on disk
`
`are split among multiple disk blocks, which may not be contiguously located, and
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`each allocated disk block is dedicated to a single file. Thus, each SM object
`
`described by the ’074 patent is located on a number of disk blocks. Accordingly,
`
`the disk head will have to physically move and the disk itself will have to rotate
`
`before the disk head can delete or replace a chunk from the next SM object. Thus,
`
`as a result of the physical limitations of the disk format and that blocks are
`
`dedicated to single files, each object must be processed one object at a time.
`
`16.
`
`PO also argues that, during prosecution of the ’074 patent, the
`
`Examiner allowed the challenged claims in view of the Applicant’s explanation
`
`“that the claim was patentable over Wolf because, among other reasons, Wolf does
`
`‘not disclos[e] or otherwise sugges[t]’ composing ‘a set of SM objects (i.e.,
`
`multiple objects)’.” POR, 28. However, the snippet of Applicant’s statement
`
`during prosecution that PO and Dr. Jones rely on encompasses two separate and
`
`distinct actions: (i) composing a set of SM objects (annotated in blue below); and
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`(ii) replacing a portion of each SM object with chunks of the received SM object
`
`(annotated in orange below).
`
`Ex. 1009, 9 (annotated), cited in Ex. 2018, ¶42
`
`17. However, the Notice of Allowability notably does not identify any
`
`specific portion of the Applicant’s comments or feature (i.e., “action”) that the
`
`Examiner found to distinguish the claims from the prior art. Ex. 1010, 6. I find no
`
`evidence in the prosecution history that truly says one way or the other whether the
`
`Examiner was persuaded specifically that Wolf did not teach “composing ‘a set of
`
`SM objects.’”
`
`18.
`
`In fact, this snippet also suggests an intentional ordering of the two
`
`actions. Specifically, a POSITA would recognize that the language added to claim
`
`5 requires the second action to occur after the set has been created because the
`
`second action refers to “the” set. The implicit processing order of the two actions
`
`only further confirms the rationale already detailed in my initial Declaration for
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`combining Wolf with Aggarwal. That is, to the extent Wolf does not expressly
`
`disclose creating a set and then deleting from the set, in that order, such a teaching
`
`is found in Aggarwal.
`
`19.
`
`I also understand that PO has proposed a construction of the phrase
`
`“set of SM objects” to “be construed to include more than one SM object.” POR
`
`21-25. It is my opinion that no special construction of the phase “set of SM
`
`objects” is required; however, I can confirm that PO’s proposed construction
`
`would not change my opinions or analysis in this proceeding should it be adopted.
`
`As described in my initial Declaration and confirmed above, Wolf also discloses
`
`operating on more than one object in a set. In fact, given the clarity of Wolf’s
`
`disclosure describing its operating on and deletion from multiple objects, it appears
`
`likely that the Examiner was actually focused on the potential failure of Wolf to
`
`disclose composing a set of objects prior to performing any deletions, contrary to
`
`PO’s interpretation of the prosecution history above.
`
`B.
`
`PO Mischaracterizes the Application of Aggarwal Described by
`the Petition
`20. As described above and in my initial Declaration, Wolf teaches the
`
`deleting or replacing step recited by the challenged independent claims. PO argues
`
`that “[c]ontrary to the Petition’s assertions, combining Aggarwal with Wolf …
`
`does not remedy this central deficiency in Wolf.” POR, 30. But PO
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`mischaracterizes how my initial Declaration—and, in turn, the Petition—applies
`
`Aggarwal to Wolf.
`
`21.
`
`Specifically—and after explaining how Wolf discloses replacing
`
`eligible segments of multiple media objects at the bottom of the LRU cache with
`
`segments of the incoming media object—my initial Declaration describes that
`
`Aggarwal discloses a method of caching objects on proxy servers that first
`
`identifies a set of objects for replacement that occupy sufficient space to store the
`
`incoming object before deleting or replacing segments of those objects. Ex. 1002,
`
`¶130; Ex. 1004, 4:15-22, 9:35-38, 10:28-29. By modifying Wolf in this manner, a
`
`POSITA could first identify the media objects and their segments eligible for
`
`replacement and confirm that enough space would be made available before
`
`discarding the segments as already set forth in Wolf. Ex. 1002, ¶131; see also, Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶85-91. In other words, the benefits of determining in advance the set of
`
`objects for which portions will be deleted (taught in Aggarwal) would optimize the
`
`technique already disclosed by Wolf. Ex. 1002, ¶¶88-91.
`
`22.
`
`The introduction of Aggarwal is not intended to remedy any purported
`
`deficiency in Wolf’s disclosure with respect to the concept of deleting portions of
`
`multiple objects, nor do I opine at all as to such a deficiency in Wolf.
`
`23.
`
`PO’s misunderstanding of the proposed combination with Aggarwal
`
`continues where PO argues that Aggarwal’s caching technique “does not disclose
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`or even suggest the concept of deleting a portion of each of a plurality of such
`
`static objects.” POR, 31-35. But, as I discussed above, the concept of deleting a
`
`portion of each of a plurality of objects is already disclosed in Wolf, and the
`
`absence of such disclosure in Aggarwal is irrelevant. Rather, I introduce Aggarwal
`
`for its feature of determining the set of objects before deleting, simply as an
`
`optimization. That Wolf distinguishes its caching technique from that of Aggarwal
`
`would not discourage a POSITA from implementing improvements in Wolf based
`
`on other, orthogonal features described in Aggarwal. And this is the premise of the
`
`combination, as set out in the Petition and confirmed above.
`
`24.
`
`I find that PO’s other arguments with respect to Aggarwal do not
`
`change the outcome or my opinion. For example, PO suggests that “Aggarwal is
`
`directed to caching systems for static objects, not SM objects.” POR, 31.
`
`However, Aggarwal’s disclosure never uses the word “static,” and instead makes
`
`clear that “[e]xamples of [its] objects include: any digitally transmitted content
`
`such as image files or web pages; and executable content such as Java Applets, and
`
`servlets.” Ex. 1004, 5:17-19. No POSITA reading Aggarwal would expect its
`
`teachings to be limited to “static” objects.
`
`25.
`
`PO also attempts to distinguish Aggarwal’s set identification feature
`
`by suggesting that “Aggarwal performs this identification for a very different
`
`reason: to determine whether the popularity of the incoming object outweighs the
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`collective popularity of the objects it will replace.” POR, 33. But PO focuses on
`
`only a single “example of the admission control logic” depicted in Aggarwal’s
`
`Figure 10 embodiment (Ex. 1004, 4:60-61, 10:62-64), which is directed to deciding
`
`whether or not an incoming object should be admitted to the cache at all (Ex. 1004,
`
`10:64-66), and ignores the other more relevant algorithms of how to determine
`
`which objects need to be purged to make room for an incoming object that are
`
`disclosed by Aggarwal (Ex. 1004, 10:20-31). In particular, Figure 7 of Aggarwal
`
`depicts an example of replacement selection logic. Ex. 1004, 4:55-56. This is the
`
`algorithm that I described and relied upon in my initial Declaration. Figure 7’s
`
`algorithm performs steps to build a set of objects constituting the required purge
`
`space S. Ex. 1004, Figure 7, 10:20-31; Ex. 1015, 58:7-59:18 (Dr. Jones
`
`confirming the steps of Aggarwal’s Figure 7). Contrary to PO’s generalization of
`
`Aggarwal (based on a single, different algorithm), the algorithm of Figure 7 that is
`
`relied upon in my initial Declaration makes no determination with respect to object
`
`popularity. Ex. 1015, 59:19-61:7 (Dr. Jones confirming that a POSITA would
`
`understand that the “time since last accessed” in Aggarwal’s Figure 7 algorithm
`
`can measure characteristics other than popularity).
`
`There is Motivation to Combine Wolf with Aggarwal
`C.
`26. As I described in detail above, PO has either mischaracterized or
`
`entirely misunderstood the combination of Wolf and Aggarwal that was set forth in
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`my initial Declaration. As a result, PO’s arguments targeting the motivation to
`
`combine those references are premised on the same mischaracterizations or
`
`misunderstandings and, likewise, miss the mark. For the reasons discussed in my
`
`initial Declaration at ¶¶85-91, as well as above, a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to combine the enhancement of Aggarwal (i.e., creating a sufficiently-
`
`sized set prior to performing any deletions) with the teaching of Wolf (i.e., deleting
`
`portions from a set) to arrive at a system that renders the challenged claims
`
`obvious.
`
`III. PO’s Entire Argument with Respect to Ueno is Premised on Positions I
`Never Presented
`27.
`I understand that the Board granted this inter partes review upon
`
`finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that the
`
`first conditional limitation is taught by Ueno. DI, 31. My initial declaration, filed
`
`in support of that Petition, describes how Ueno teaches the first conditional
`
`limitation of the independent challenged claims 3 and 9. Ex. 1002, ¶¶147-173,
`
`189.
`
`28. As described in my initial Declaration, Ueno discloses a center server
`
`(“content server”) that stores video content, local servers (“helper servers”) that
`
`store frequently accessed video, and set-top units (“clients”) that receive video
`
`(“streaming media object”) from either the center server or the local server over a
`
`network and display the content for a user. Ex. 1002, ¶¶147-149; Ex. 1005, 17:61-
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`18:9, Figure 9. Figure 9 of Ueno, provided below, illustrates a schematic view of
`
`the system, which includes a center server (blue element 901), local servers (green
`
`elements 903 and 904), and set-top units (red elements 907 to 910) connected
`
`through networks (elements 902, 905 and 906). Ex. 1005, 17:61-66, Figure 9.
`
`Figure 9 of Ueno
`
`29. Ueno discloses a plurality of helper servers (“HSs”) because it
`
`discloses local video servers that cache video content, transmit video content to a
`
`user, and retransmit the video content “on another user’s demand.” Ex. 1002,
`
`¶150; Ex. 1005, 17:55-60. PO appears only to argue in response that “Petitioner
`
`relies on processes in Ueno’s “headend” for the alleged disclosure of steps (ii)-(iv)
`
`of the Claims,” and that somehow these processes cannot be applied to Ueno’s
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`local servers (i.e., helper servers) because they occur elsewhere in the network.
`
`POR, 46-51.
`
`30.
`
`PO conflates two separate system architectures in Ueno to argue that:
`
`“Ueno’s local servers, which Petitioner relies on for the disclosure of the helper
`
`servers, are shown in red. Ueno’s headend, which is the disclosure Petitioner relies
`
`on for claimed steps (ii)-(iv), are shown in green.” POR, 47. In particular, PO
`
`relies on Ueno’s Figure 2, which shows “a schematic view of the first preferred
`
`embodiment of a moving-picture transmission system according to the present
`
`invention,” which is a cable television (“CATV”) system that locates its headend
`
`between the core network and access network. Ex. 1005, 9:28-32.
`
`31. My initial Declaration does not rely upon or reference Ueno’s CATV
`
`embodiment; instead, I relied on Ueno’s video on demand (“VOD”) embodiment,
`
`covered in Figures 9 and 10. Ex. 1005, 7:50-51 (“FIG. 9 is a schematic view
`
`illustrating a typical VOD system”), 18:18-20 (“FIG. 10 is a schematic view
`
`illustrating the preferred embodiment of a VOD system according to the present
`
`invention.”) While, of course, there is some overlap today, particularly at the time
`
`of the ’074 patent, not all CATV systems included VOD capability, nor were VOD
`
`systems necessarily also CATV systems. Ex. 1015, 74:21-75:11 (Dr. Jones
`
`confirming the same). Accordingly, where PO attempts to blend the architecture
`
`of a CATV system (Figure 2) with a VOD system (Figure 10), the implied
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`equivalence of the system elements, positioning, and operation of those two
`
`different systems is inappropriate from a technical perspective.
`
`32. Nor do the annotations shown to Ueno’s Figure 2 in the POR reflect
`
`any characterization made in my initial Declaration. There, I refer only to a “local
`
`server,” as shown in the VOD system of Figure 9, that implements the claimed
`
`method. Ex. 1002, ¶¶147-149; see also, id., ¶¶147-187. Contrary to the annotated
`
`Figure 2 presented by PO (POR, 47), Ueno never suggests that storage unit 201 is
`
`part of any local server—and neither does my initial Declaration.
`
`33. Contrary to PO’s assertion that “Ueno’s headend is a distinct entity
`
`from the local server, located elsewhere in the network,” Ueno is clear with respect
`
`to the relevant VOD architecture that “[t]he local server is arranged for each area
`
`which contains at least one headend (HE) provided at the connecting point.” Ex.
`
`1005, 18:13-15. In other words, there is a logical colocation between the local
`
`server and headend that would be appreciated by a POSITA in view of Ueno’s
`
`specification.
`
`34. Moreover, the local servers in Ueno’s Figure 9 are just that: servers.
`
`A POSITA would readily understand Ueno’s local servers to be devices that can
`
`store and serve data to other requesting devices. In fact, the local servers depicted
`
`throughout Ueno (e.g., in VOD Figures 9 and 10) are illustrated using a cylindrical
`
`symbol, well-known in network diagrams to represent disks or databases, where a
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`POSITA would expect data to be stored. Ueno’s disclosure further confirms this
`
`understanding: “In general, the local server stores video sources.” Ex. 1005, 18:3-
`
`4. Accordingly, Ueno’s discussion of how it erases old video data to store new
`
`video data when the storage capacity of a video data storage unit is saturated (Ex.
`
`1005, 21:52-55)—which is not specific to any particular video data storage unit in
`
`the VOD system—would be understood by the POSITA to be applicable to any
`
`storage unit in the system that receives and caches video data, such as Ueno’s local
`
`servers.
`
`35.
`
`The algorithm described by Ueno with respect to erasing old video
`
`data in order to store new video data, in response to saturated capacity at the video
`
`data storage unit, corresponds to the steps recited by the challenged claims. This
`
`correspondence is set forth in my initial Declaration in the context of Ueno’s VOD
`
`embodiment, and confirms that the challenged claims are obvious in view of the
`
`Ueno-based grounds.
`
`36.
`
`Finally, I note that PO argues that “Petitioner’s proposed reason to
`
`combine with Aggarwal is even more improper when applied to Ueno” because
`
`Ueno supposedly never needs to make room in the cache for a specific SM object.
`
`POR, 41-45. But PO’s arguments are based on only isolated embodiments of Ueno
`
`and ignore the broader disclosure of the reference. For example, PO contends that
`
`Ueno only discloses deleting certain existing video segments if the available free
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`space in its video data storage unit is “less than a certain value.” POR, 41-42. But
`
`the portion of Ueno relied upon by PO says only that it is “desired” that space be
`
`made in the cache preemptively, not that it necessarily does so. Further, that
`
`portion of Ueno also describes making space in the cache when the storage
`
`capacity (i.e. free space) is less than a certain value, but nothing in Ueno explains
`
`what that “certain value” is or how to calculate it—nor does Ueno equate it with
`
`the maximum size of a video data object. As the POSITA would appreciate, even
`
`assuming that a system did preemptively maintain some nominal amount of free
`
`space, the system would still have to perform the algorithm described in Ueno’s
`
`Figure 11 and beginning at 21:52 if the incoming video data object was larger than
`
`the available free space.
`
`37. Additionally, PO argues that, in Ueno, “the storage unit reports in
`
`advance its usable storage capacity to the transmitter, and the transmitter simply
`
`stops transmitting when the amount of data transmitted reaches the reported
`
`capacity.” POR, 42. But again, PO cites to only one specific embodiment to
`
`support this point—in fact, even specifically identifying the Figure 2 CATV
`
`embodiment which, as noted above, is a different embodiment than Ueno’s VOD
`
`system that the Petition relies upon. PO also cites to Ueno’s dependent claim 8 to
`
`identify this feature, which only goes to confirm that Ueno did not intend for this
`
`specific feature to apply to all of its embodiments or system architectures. See
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`also, Ex. 1015, 67:1-69:10 (Dr. Jones confirming that the related features in Ueno
`
`are not required by all embodiments).1
`
`IV. Availability for Cross-Examination
`38.
`In signing this declaration, I recognize that the declaration will be
`
`filed as evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I also recognize that I may be
`
`subject to cross-examination in the case and that cross-examination will take place
`
`within the United States. If cross-examination is required of me, I will appear for
`
`cross-examination within the United States during the time allotted for cross-
`
`examination.
`
`V.
`
`Right to Supplement
`39.
`I reserve the right to supplement my opinions in the future to respond
`
`to any arguments that the Patent Owner raises and to take into account new
`
`information as it becomes available to me.
`
`1 I also note that PO takes my deposition testimony out of context to support this
`
`point (POR, 42-43), where I was discussing only one “particular example [in Ueno
`
`where] all of the segments do have a priority number over them.” Ex. 2019, 202:3-
`
`7. Contrary to PO’s assertion, I do not agree that this is the case in all of Ueno’s
`
`examples or embodiments.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00864
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`
`VI. Conclusion
`
`40.
`
`I declare thatall statements made herein of my own knowledgeare
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true;
`
`and further that these statements were made with the full knowledgethat willful
`
`false statements and the like so madeare punishable by fine or imprisonment, or
`
`both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States code.
`
`Dated:March 14,2019
`
`Ubnersubmitted,
`
`Henry H. Houh, Ph.D
`Lexington, Massachusetts
`
`21
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
