`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`
`NETFLIX, INC., ARRIS SOLUTIONS, INC., and
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`Case IPR 2018-01169
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 4, 2019
`__________
`
`
`Before KEVIN W. CHERRY, GARTH D. BAER, and
`NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01169
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`HARPER BATTS, ESQUIRE
`CHRIS PONDER, ESQUIRE
`Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
`379 Lytton Avenue
`Palo Alto, California 94301
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`PHILIP WANG, ESQUIRE
`Russ August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard
`12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`
`September 4, 2019, commencing at 12:30 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01169
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
`
`
`(Proceedings begin at 12:45 p.m.)
`JUDGE BAER: All right. Good afternoon, everybody.
`Again, apologies for the timing delay, but let's go ahead and get
`started.
`We have, this afternoon, our final hearing in IPR2018-01169
`between Petitioner, Netflix, and Patent Owner, Real Time Adaptive
`Streaming.
`Petitioner, Arris, from IPR2019-00674, and Petitioner,
`Comcast, from IPR2019-00684, have also been joined to this
`proceeding.
`The challenged patent number here in this case is US Patent
`No. 8,934,535. I'm Judge Baer. With me is Judge Cherry and
`appearing remotely is Judge Khan.
`Let's go ahead and get the parties' appearances, if we could,
`please. Who do we have for Petitioner, Netflix?
`MR. BATTS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is Harper
`Batts. With me is my colleague, Chris Ponder, on behalf of
`Petitioner, Netflix. And also in attendance with the joinder counsel
`is Jim Day from -- for Comcast and Andrew Wilson for Arris.
`JUDGE BAER: Great. Thank you, Mr. Batts.
`And for Patent Owner, Realtime?
`MR. WANG: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Philip Wang
`for Patent Owner, Realtime Adaptive Streaming.
`JUDGE BAER: Thank you, Mr. Wang.
`Welcome, everybody. It's good to have you here. We
`certainly do appreciate you making the effort to be here. We set
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01169
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`forth the hearing for today's -- we set forth the procedure, rather, for
`today's hearing in our trial order that we issued.
`But just to remind everybody of how everything will go, first of
`all, am I correct that only Petitioner, Netflix, will be presenting on
`behalf of Petitioners today, correct?
`MR. BATTS: Correct, Your Honor. Just myself.
`JUDGE BAER: Great. Thank you.
`All right. The parties will each have -- the presenting parties
`will each have 60 minutes of total time to present. Please keep in
`mind that whatever you project on the screen Judge Khan will not be
`able to see, but he has the materials there in front of him.
`So, if you could just be really clear about what slide number
`you're referencing, what exhibit you're referencing, that will help
`Judge Khan to keep up. And it will also help to keep our record
`clear, if you would, please.
`We remind the parties that under no circumstances are you to
`interrupt the other party while they're making their presentation. If
`there's something that you believe is objectionable, that's fine. You
`can make that objection during your own time, but, please, during
`your own time only.
`I know that, Patent Owner, you had some objections to some of
`Petitioner's demonstratives. That's fine. You can make those
`arguments, but, please, only make those arguments during your time.
`Okay?
`Let's see. Does counsel for Petitioner, Netflix, have any
`questions before we get going?
`MR. BATTS: No, Your Honor. I have copies of the
`demonstratives, if you'd like them.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`IPR2018-01169
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`
`JUDGE BAER; That would be great. And, Mr. Wang, do
`you have copies as well?
`MR. WANG: Yes, I do, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BAER: Why don't we go ahead and distribute those.
`MR. BATTS: May I approach?
`JUDGE BAER: Please.
`JUDGE BAER: Okay. Petitioner, you're planning on using
`demonstratives as well; is that correct?
`MR. BATTS : Correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BAER: Okay. Why don't we take five minutes or
`so, then. Again, sorry for the delay.
`We'll take five minutes, we'll come back and see if we can get
`the Elmo working. Okay? All right. With that, we'll recess for
`five minutes.
`(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at
`12:49 p.m. and resumed at 12:53 p.m.)
`JUDGE BAER: Please be seated. Okay. Looks like we
`have everything set up. So, when we left off, I was asking Petitioner
`-- I think I already asked you, but any questions before we get started?
`MR. BATTS: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BAER: And for Patent Owner, any questions before
`we get started?
`MR. WANG: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BAER: Great. Petitioner, you have the burden, so
`you will go first. Whenever you're ready, you may begin -- actually,
`first, we said 60 minutes of time. Do you want to reserve some time
`for rebuttal?
`MR. BATTS: Yes, Your Honor. I'd like to reserve 20
`minutes.
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`IPR2018-01169
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`
`JUDGE BAER: 20 minutes. I believe the light will flash
`green at 2 minutes, and then yellow at 1, but sometimes those
`numbers vary a little bit. I'll try and give you a heads up when
`you've got five minutes to go. Okay?
`MR. BATTS: Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BAER: No hurry, but begin whenever you're ready.
`MR. BATTS: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`As you noted, this hearing is about the '535 patent. And in
`terms of where we stand for this, I'm putting up Slide No. 2 to give
`you a quick overview of where we are.
`This IPR involves only a single obviousness ground
`challenging all -- well, Claims 1 through 14. And in terms of where
`the arguments lie, and what we'll be discussing today, Patent Owner
`has primarily addressed its arguments related to Independent Claim 1.
`It did have some separate arguments regarding Claims 1 and 4.
`Although, the arguments for Claim 4 were dropped from the surreply,
`so I'm not sure they're still maintaining those arguments.
`And then the last argument is the proper construction of access
`profile. There's only one claim term that appears to be in dispute
`between the parties. And then for context, in a separate IPR, Claims
`15 to 30 have been disclaimed by the Patent Owner.
`And in terms of the obviousness ground that we're dealing with
`here today, we're dealing with a two reference obviousness ground
`relying upon the Imai and Ishii references.
`So, next, I'd like to turn to Slide 3 because I think a lot of our
`focus is going to be on Claim 1 here today and the language of Claim
`1.
`
`And before we get started into the in-depth arguments, I'd just
`like to provide a quick overview of, really, what Claim 1 is talking
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`IPR2018-01169
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`about and requiring, which is, first, determining a parameter attribute
`of some data, Element A; second, the selecting of an access profile --
`and we'll get into what access profile means, but selecting an access
`profile based upon that parameter or attribute; and then compressing
`the data by selecting a compressor based upon the information from
`the access profile. So, I think it's three, kind of, general concepts
`that are required in that claim that we'll get into today.
`And I think, also, it's useful for context to recall that in the file
`history for this patent, the claims that we're challenging here were
`rejected, and Patent Owner overcame that rejection by adding the
`asymmetric aspect to Element 1C.
`And in this IPR, Patent Owner is not contesting that the prior
`art discloses asymmetric compressors, and, instead, really that the
`battle seems to be around access profile and frequency of access
`teachings and a motivation to combine.
`So, I think it's also useful to recall what the patent teaches or
`doesn't teach in terms of the '535 patent that we're challenging here.
`So, on Slide 4, I've given an overview of really how heavily the '535
`patent relies upon the knowledge of a person skilled in the art for
`many of the topics that we're discussing today.
`As an example, the
`specification doesn't even refer to video or audio compressors. It
`only mentions the term video twice. So, there's a lot there that's
`being left to the POSITA and the POSITA's knowledge.
`I don't believe we have any dispute that a POSITA here would
`have video data compression experience as well as a relevant degree
`in the field.
`So, we're looking at POSITAs that would be knowledgeable
`and would have to know things for themselves rather than looking at
`the '535 patent to understand what it's talking about and how things,
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`IPR2018-01169
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`more importantly, are going to be implemented. So, another
`example, on the second bullet, is that the '535 patent doesn't go into
`any detail about how to implement these compression algorithms that
`are now claimed. It just says you use them in the claims rather than
`going into how would you build them, how would you implement
`them, how would you use them.
`The third bullet is going to get more complicated, I'm sure, and
`we'll go into more discussion on access profile, but I do think it's
`useful to look at, from the higher level, that there really isn't a lot of
`teachings in the '535 patent about how to make access profiles.
`Rather, there's some exemplars primarily in Columns 11 and 12 that
`provide you some context of what an access profile is.
`It certainly doesn't get into how would you determine the access
`frequency of a particular data block -- the term that the Patent likes to
`use -- or portions of a data block, it just provides a general, hey, you,
`use an access profile to select which compressor you want to
`compress the data with.
`And, I guess, again, looking at the higher level, if you look at
`the overall '535 patent, much of the patent does not relate to the claims
`or the technology that we're discussing here today.
`There's really a limited -- a number of columns that we're going
`to be discussing where there's anything about access profiles or the
`selection aspect that is relevant for the claim -- the challenged claims
`here.
`
`So, I'd like to go back to the institution decision, also, briefly
`for context. As Your Honors likely recall, the IPR was instituted and
`the Board found that there was sufficient motivation to combine and
`that there are rational explanations for why the Imai and Ishii
`references would be combined.
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`IPR2018-01169
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`
`And the Board rejected Realtime's argument about access
`frequency and whether the teachings that were provided in the petition
`were sufficient.
`And not only did the Board actually reject the argument in
`terms of what was being presented by Netflix, but the Board went on
`to say, citing the In re Keller decision, that that type of argument was
`an improper bodily incorporation argument.
` And I think what's very notable here is that Petitioner,
`Netflix, re-raised that same bodily incorporation argument in our reply
`brief, we cited the In re Mouttet decision and Keller -- very similar to
`Keller and some of these other decisions that we have about bodily
`incorporation and Realtime -- Patent Owner, Realtime, failed to ever
`address the bodily incorporation argument in its Patent Owner
`response or in its surreply.
`It never addressed Keller. It never addressed In re Mouttet.
`And so, that argument has been waived by Realtime, and I think their
`failure to address that argument concerning their access profile
`argument is fatal to their positions here today.
`So, then I think in terms of -- the first thing I'd like to go over
`with you, if I may, is the construction of access profile and what the
`appropriate construction of access profile should be.
`We'll go to Slide 9. I think Slide 9 provides a good overview
`of the different constructions that are relevant for our discussions here
`today.
`Petitioner proposed a construction, in its petition, that access
`profiles should be information regarding the number or frequency of
`reads or writes.
`And in the response -- in the preliminary response Realtime
`didn't formally propose a construction, but basically advocated a
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`IPR2018-01169
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`construction that it should instead be information that enables the
`controller to select a suitable compression algorithm that provides a
`desired balance between execution speed and efficiency. And at
`institution, the Board sided with Petitioner, Netflix, in adopting the
`Petitioner's construction.
`After institution, Patent Owner formally urged what I would
`call, I guess, a meta construction that it started with in its preliminary
`response and, again, urged the Board here to adopt its construction.
`And I do think it's relevant to note that there are separate IPR
`proceedings between the parties on the '046 patent that we referenced
`in our reply brief, and the Panel in the '046 decision -- '046
`proceeding, upon institution, took a different view as to the term
`access profile and actually adopted a broader construction than
`proposed by Netflix saying, information such as the number of
`frequency of reads or writes.
`JUDGE CHERRY: There's one more construction out there,
`right, in '1342? I think in the '1342 case there's another construction
`floating out there. I don't think we adopted it, but I think that the
`Petitioner in that case has another construction.
`MR. BATTS: I believe that that's the other --
`JUDGE CHERRY: Sling TV.
`MR. BATTS: -- the Sling IPR. I believe that there is still a
`disagreement there about access profile and whether data type can be
`access profile. And I'm going to discuss that as well today --
`JUDGE CHERRY: Okay.
`MR. BATTS: -- but I felt like the one for the '046 was the
`more relevant where a separate panel has made a determination about
`the same claim term and also rejected the same construction that
`Patent Owner is advocating here.
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`IPR2018-01169
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`
`We're not quite sure whether Patent Owner is still disputing this
`construction. In their reply brief for the '046 that was filed, I think,
`two weeks ago, they said they were no longer contesting the
`construction in that proceeding. And we asked them for a position
`and we're not quite sure, but we'll -- I'm sure we'll hear and I'll address
`it on rebuttal as necessary.
`So, if you go to Slide 12 -- or 11, the Patent, as you are likely
`aware, has a relatively lengthy discussion of access profile across
`Columns 11 and 12 providing some examples of what an access
`profile --
`JUDGE CHERRY: And just to be clear, between the '209
`construction and your construction, do you see any real difference or
`anything material to your case between those two constructions?
`MR. BATTS: I do, Your Honor. I believe that we should
`prevail on our construction alone. But if that broader construction is
`adopted, I think the teachings of Ishii are both teachings about
`frequency of access, as well as using data type for the selection of the
`appropriate compressor.
`So, if we want to go broader and we encompass a data type as
`being within the construction of access profile -- and by data type, I
`mean a file extension, for example, and I'll get into those examples --
`then I think there is multiple reasons why the Petition should be
`rejected under the proposed grounds. But I think either way we
`should --
`JUDGE CHERRY: It should be rejected.
`MR. BATTS: Correct.
`(Laughter.)
`MR. BATTS: As far as my position, but I'm happy to go into
`that in more detail.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01169
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`
`So, I think -- I was trying to provide some context for the
`access profile discussion here from Columns 11 and 12, and what we
`see is -- these are two tables at the bottom of Columns 11 and 12
`respectively that provided examples of what an access profile would
`be. And, in addition, I think there is some relevant language on 11
`that I'll just read off here that also describes the table.
`So, on Column 11 of the '535 patent starting at lines 35 to 39, it
`says: for instance, the data profiles may comprise a map that
`associates different data types based on e.g., a file extension with a
`preferred one of the compression algorithms. For example, preferred
`access profiles considered by the controller 11 are set forth in the
`following table.
`So, the table -- I don't think there's a dispute that the table is
`showing what access profiles are. And the access profiles in the
`table show -- looking at the relative, basically, slots for rough
`characterizations of what you would expect to be the reads or writes
`of the data that is to be compressed.
`And I think that's certainly relevant as we get into Realtime's
`very implementation-specific arguments later today about knowing
`precise access frequency of a particular data block or portion of a data
`block. If we go to --
`JUDGE KHAN: Counsel, is there any distinction between --
`what's the distinction between your construction and Patent Owner's
`construction here?
`Could it be that your construction is somehow encompassed by
`Patent Owner's construction? Could the frequency of reads and
`writes be included in information that enables the controller to select a
`suitable compression algorithm?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`IPR2018-01169
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`
`MR. BATTS: I do think it could be encompassed. I think
`that the issue -- and I am going to address the problems also with their
`proposed construction, but I think one of the biggest issues with their
`proposed construction is it really injects a Nautilus-type of uncertainty
`here to the claims where we're left to wonder what is desirable versus
`suitable. There were uncertainty that we believe are unnecessary to
`determine that the claims here -- whether the claims here are invalid.
`So, if we look at Slide 12, Realtime is primarily relying upon
`this one portion of the '535 patent from Column 8 that refers to the
`information enabling the controller to select a suitable compression
`algorithm that provides a desired balance between execution speed
`and efficiency; but the problem with that is that it really does use
`language that would leave uncertain where the balance of the claims
`would be.
`And I think that's demonstrated in Slide 13 where we asked
`Realtime's expert, Dr. Zeger, as to, well, what is the actual meaning?
`What would desired mean and how would we understand the claim
`scope to know what would be the desired balance?
`And as you can see from his answer here, he said, I think the
`understanding of desired would be in the eyes of the practitioner.
`And then he said, a person, for example, might have a particular
`desirable balance.
`So, I think that really highlights that the problem with Patent
`Owner's proposed construction is there's a lot of ambiguity in their
`construction as to what would be appropriate for a particular
`Petitioner versus another practitioner.
`And those types of indefinite and subjective terms, I think,
`really run afoul of Nautilus. And that's why I think their
`construction would be inappropriate.
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`IPR2018-01169
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`
`And if we go to Slide 13, at a later point in the deposition we
`also asked Dr. Zeger about how does the term suitable relate to
`desirable?
`And as you can see from the question and answer here, he
`really does a circular logic of saying, well, suitable is desirable,
`desirable is suitable.
`So, I think that goes to are we actually -- is Patent Owner's
`construction actually providing any more explanation or certainty or
`understanding as to what is the claim scope or is it doing actually the
`opposite, which is injecting a lot of uncertainty as to what would
`satisfy the claims.
`JUDGE BAER: Mr. Batts, does that matter in an IPR? In
`other words, in a district court claim, construction -- there's a canon of
`claim construction that says, we construe a claim -- one of the canons
`is to construe a claim such that the claim is valid. It's sort of a rather
`weak presumption, but does that matter here?
`I mean, what is your response to the response to your argument
`that, so what? Okay. Maybe our claim is invalid under Nautilus.
`It's not an issue here. We're only addressing prior art and validity
`here, so why does it matter whether their construction injects some
`indefiniteness into the claim?
`MR. BATTS: So, I think a couple of issues, Your Honor.
`One is -- if we look at, I think, Slide 29, one is that the arguments that
`Realtime is relying -- or the evidence that Realtime is arguing on --
`arguing for their construction, they're saying that Petitioner's
`construction is flawed because it's too narrow.
`And you see the language here from their Patent Owner
`response where they say, hey, for example, the specification states
`that an access profile may comprise a data type alone.
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`IPR2018-01169
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`
`And so, we called them out on that and basically said, in our
`reply brief, well, it can also maybe be data type alone, but then that's
`also satisfied by Ishii.
`So, if you want to broaden it out to include something along the
`lines in the separate IPR proceeding that the other panel has adopted
`and not be limited to information regarding reads or writes, but
`broaden it out somewhere further, that may be -- you know, we don't
`believe it's necessary, but we're not going to necessarily contest that
`because we think our art will satisfy it for even more reasons there.
`But if we go to Slide 3, you'll see that they flip-flopped in their
`surreply about -- the position about whether data type can be an access
`profile. So, they're not really -- the thing that they advocated to say
`that our construction was too narrow, they suddenly turned around
`and said, well, Patent Owner hasn't argued that its construction
`necessarily encompasses data type, we just said it could encompass
`data type.
`Well, under claim construction, it could encompass data type
`and that should be included within their proposed construction. So, I
`think in terms of your specific question about indefiniteness and
`whether that's an issue that the Panel needs to address rather than a
`district court, I do think the answer is still yes because I think it
`doesn't make sense to adopt a construction here that's unnecessarily
`ambiguous and subjective when we have constructions that are
`consistent with the claims in the specification regarding what is access
`profile.
`And that is information that allows -- information we say reads
`or writes or some sort of estimation of what would be the expected
`reads or writes based upon a data type to allow for the selection of
`appropriate compressor.
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`IPR2018-01169
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`
`JUDGE BAER: Let me rephrase the question, then, a little
`bit. Are you aware of any case law that would suggest a construction
`that is less ambiguous, is preferred over a more -- over a more
`ambiguous construction in an IPR?
`MR. BATTS: I think the clear -- I guess I would say Nautilus.
`I think the clear direction from Nautilus is that you should be looking
`at having a claim scope that provides certainty to the public and to
`Petitioners to know the bounds.
`And what I see typically here is that even if there could be some
`question as to the bounds of the construction, the prior art and the
`teachings here are sufficiently within whatever construction is being
`proposed by Patent Owner, by Petitioner or by the separate panel that
`we would still prevail.
`JUDGE CHERRY: I mean, I guess it's my question.
`So, I mean, I'm looking at your summary -- I'm looking at Slide
`5 and, you know, from the summary of invention of Ishii, and it says,
`you know, selects -- you've highlighted, selects the file compression
`method suitable for the data type and access frequency.
`Why -- I guess I'm just not sure why we're fighting about access
`profile. I mean, is there -- is it that they say that you haven't
`proffered evidence under their construction to meet that or why
`wouldn't --
`MR. BATTS: I think that their -- sorry.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Go ahead. Go ahead.
`MR. BATTS: I think their likely argument, Your Honor, is
`that the petition didn't directly address data type rather than access
`frequency. Even though we did both and we clearly showed that
`Ishii does both, I think -- we'll hear from Realtime's counsel, but that's
`the argument I expect.
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`IPR2018-01169
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`
`And then I also would note that Ishii itself on Column 7, lines
`17 to 20, actually states that it takes into account the execution speed
`and the compression ratio looking at compression and decompression.
`So, I think that's also relevant teaching to Ishii that -- Ishii is
`teaching to look at to select the suitable compressor based upon data
`type and access frequency.
`But what I do fear, I guess, from Judge Baer's question, would
`be a scenario -- when you say, what's the cite about, I would be a little
`fearful about a final written decision that says, now, we can't
`determine the claim scope and we have to not make a determination
`about whether the prior art invalidates.
`So, I guess that's why I think it's worth giving you a few more
`shots at why I think the construction should not be adopted by Patent
`Owner. And if we go broader than the construction we originally
`proposed, we're okay with that. We just think there's additional
`reasons to invalidate the claims.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Okay.
`MR. BATTS: So, I think the next part that I was planning to
`move on to was the actual proposed grounds and how the proposed
`grounds invalidate the claims regardless, really, of the construction
`adopted.
`If we go to Slide 18, I think it -- a lot of the arguments from
`Realtime stem to be what the Petition actually included in terms of
`arguments or motivations to combine. And I think looking at the
`actual sections of the petition and the company expert declaration, it's
`clear that we included the necessary arguments and rationales to
`prevail here.
`So, what is the Petitioner arguing? Well, the Petitioner is
`arguing that we would use the combined teachings of Imai and Ishii.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01169
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`And if we go to Imai on Slide 20, I don't think there's really much of a
`dispute here that Imai is a system where you're looking at digital
`signals and selecting between multiple compressors to compress data;
`and that Imai teaches various factors to use to determine what the
`appropriate compressor should be, whether it's an asymmetric
`compressor or a symmetric compressor.
`And at the bottom of Slide 20, we've included some samples of
`the different factors that Imai chooses -- Imai includes for the
`selection criteria. And that's the processing capability of the client,
`the transition rate of the network, and the content of the digital
`signals.
`So, I think it's clear that Imai is teaching this selection process
`in selecting between compressor and using various criteria for the
`selection process.
`Then if we turn to Ishii on Slide 23, Ishii is teaching looking at
`the access frequency of data for our files for compression. And it
`teaches both looking at the type of data that you're going to be
`compressing, as well as the frequency for the determination of what
`compressor to apply.
`So, we think that's a very clear teaching, as we set forth in the
`Petition, that would be known to a person of skill in the art. And
`Ishii, in fact, teaches the motivation itself -- beyond the motivations
`that we provided in Dr. Storer's declaration in the Petition, Ishii itself
`teaches the benefits of using access frequency to choose between
`various compressors.
`So, if I go to Slide 7, I think this is a useful kind of side-by-side
`here to see what does the '535 patent say about what an access profile
`does versus what Ishii has to say about an access profile.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`IPR2018-01169
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`
`And what you see is that the Ishii reference is teaching -- on the
`bottom right there, it's talking about you're using the access frequency
`of a file, and the number of accesses for that file is basically given
`some sort of determination of relative -- or relative determination at
`low, medium or high.
`Similarly, what we see from the access profiles on Columns 11
`and 12 of the '535 patent, its relative amounts of frequencies that are
`being used to apply.
`Sometimes it seems like it could be based upon that type of data
`or it could be based upon the relative frequency for the particular data;
`but, in any event, either way it's showing using access frequency to
`determine the appropriate compressor to apply.
`Now, if we go to Slide 25, I think one of the arguments that you
`likely saw when reading the briefing here was Patent Owner,
`Realtime, was saying that we didn't provide any explanation of how or
`why Imai or Ishii would be combined -- the teachings could be
`combined.
`That was an argument I believe they made both in their
`preliminary response and then again we've seen post institution, but
`we actually provided, I think, across the Petitioner's, at least pages 18
`through 21, provided detailed explanations of how and why the
`references would be combined.
`And it was not simply that they were within the same field of
`art, it wasn't simply that they're both dealing with compression and
`choosing between compressors, but it also explained why the
`combined teachings would provide an improved system where you
`would be using the frequency of access teachings of Ishii to determine
`what would be the appropriate compressor for use within Imai's
`combined Figure 5 and Figure 16 system.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01169
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`
`In Dr. Storer's declaration -- I put an example here, but I think
`Dr. Storer's declaration in paragraphs 120 through 122 provide quite a
`bit of detailed explanation for why a person of skill in the art would
`have wanted to use the access frequency teachings of Ishii within the
`combined teachings of the two systems.
`And I guess I would go back to -- I think it's kind of useful to
`go back to -- I'm a Petitioner's counsel, so I love KSR, right? But if
`we go back to KSR In re Mouttet, I'm just going to read off the quote:
`rather the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
`references would have suggested to those ha
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
