IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––
`
`HULU, LLC;
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and
`NETFLIX, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`––––––––––
`
`Case No. Unassigned
`Patent 8,934,535
`
`––––––––––
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES A. STORER, PH.D.
`
`Page 1
`
`HULU LLC
`Exhibit 1003
`IPR2018-01170
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Background and Qualifications ........................................................................... 1
`A.
`Compensation ............................................................................................... 5
`B. Materials and Other Information Considered .............................................. 5
`II. Understanding of the Law ................................................................................... 5
`A.
`Legal Standard for Prior Art ........................................................................ 5
`1. Anticipation and Prior Art ............................................................................ 6
`B.
`Obviousness ................................................................................................. 8
`C.
`Legal Standard for Claim Construction .....................................................13
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .....................................................................18
`IV. Overview of the Technology .............................................................................19
`A.
`Overview of the ’535 Patent ......................................................................19
`B.
`Observations on the ’535 Patent ................................................................25
`V. The ’535 Patent .................................................................................................32
`A.
`Challenged Claims .....................................................................................32
`B.
`’535 Patent Prosecution History.................................................................33
`VI. Claim Construction ...........................................................................................34
`A.
`“asymmetric compressors” / “compressors using asymmetric data
`compression” ........................................................................................................35
`B.
`“data block” ................................................................................................36
`VII.Summary of the Prior Art ..................................................................................38
`A.
`Imai (Exhibit 1004) ....................................................................................38
`B.
`Ishii (Ex. 1007) ...........................................................................................43
`VIII.
`Invalidity ....................................................................................................44
`A.
`Claims 15-23 and 30 of the ’535 Patent are Obvious in View of Imai......46
`1.
`Independent Claim 15 ................................................................................46
`2. Dependent Claim 16 is Obvious ................................................................66
`3. Dependent Claims 17 and 19 are Obvious .................................................68
`4. Dependent Claim 18 is Obvious ................................................................73
`
`i
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`5. Dependent Claim 30 is Obvious ................................................................77
`6. Dependent Claim 20 is Obvious ................................................................78
`7. Dependent Claim 21 is Obvious ................................................................80
`8. Dependent Claim 22 is Obvious ................................................................82
`9. Dependent Claim 23 is Obvious ................................................................84
`B.
`Claims 24-29 are Obvious in view of Imai and Ishii .................................87
`1. Dependent Claim 24 is Obvious ................................................................93
`2. Dependent Claim 25 is Obvious ................................................................94
`3. Dependent Claim 26 is Obvious ................................................................96
`4. Dependent Claims 27-29 are Obvious .......................................................97
`IX. Reservation of Rights ......................................................................................103
`Appendix 1: Curriculum Vitae of James A. Storer ................................................104
`Appendix 2: Materials Considered in the Preparation of This Declaration ..........122
`Appendix 3: Challenged Claims ............................................................................123
`Appendix 4: Mapping Between Imai U.S. Patent and Imai (English Translation of
`JP Publication) .......................................................................................................129
`
`ii
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`I, James A. Storer, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`My name is James A. Storer. I am a Professor of Computer
`
`Science at Brandeis University and a member of the Brandeis Center for Complex
`
`Systems. I have prepared this report as an expert witness retained by Hulu, LLC
`
`(“Petitioner”). In this report I give my opinions as to whether certain claims of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,934,535 (“the ’535 Patent”) are invalid. I provide technical bases for
`
`these opinions as appropriate.
`
`2.
`
`This report contains statements of my opinions formed to date
`
`and the bases and reasons for those opinions. I may offer additional opinions based
`
`on further review of materials in this case, including opinions and/or testimony of
`
`other expert witnesses. I make this declaration based upon my own personal
`
`knowledge and, if called upon to testify, would testify competently to the matters
`
`contained herein.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`I have summarized in this section my educational background,
`
`career history, publications, and other relevant qualifications. My full curriculum
`
`vitae is attached as Appendix 1 to this declaration.
`
`4.
`
`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
`
`1
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`have studied, taught, practiced, and researched in the field of Computer Science for
`
`over thirty years. Currently, I am Professor of Computer Science at Brandeis
`
`University in Waltham, Massachusetts, where I have been on the faculty since 1981.
`
`5.
`
`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.
`
`6.
`
`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.
`
`7.
`
`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.
`
`8.
`
`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
`
`2
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`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 (“PCs”), as well as devices for
`
`communications over the Internet.
`
`9.
`
`I am the author of two books: An Introduction to Data Structures
`
`and Algorithms and Data Compression: Methods and Theory. Both books have been
`
`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.
`
`10.
`
`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.
`
`11.
`
`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.
`
`3
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`12.
`
`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, Theoretical
`
`CS, J. Algorithms, 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.
`
`13.
`
`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 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.
`
`4
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`A.
`
`14.
`
`Compensation
`
`For my efforts in connection with the preparation of this
`
`declaration I have been compensated at my standard rate for this type of consulting
`
`activity. My compensation is in no way contingent on the results of these or any
`
`other proceedings relating to the above-captioned patent.
`
`B. Materials and Other Information Considered
`
`15.
`
`I have considered information from various sources in forming
`
`my opinions. I have reviewed and considered each of the exhibits listed in the
`
`attached Appendix 2 (Appendix of Exhibits) in forming my opinions.
`
`II.
`
`UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`
`16.
`
`I have applied the following legal principles provided to me by
`
`counsel in arriving at the opinions set forth in this report.
`
`A.
`
`17.
`
`Legal Standard for Prior Art
`
`I am not an attorney. I have been informed by attorneys of the
`
`relevant legal principles and have applied them to arrive at the opinions set forth in
`
`this declaration.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that the petitioner for inter partes review may
`
`request the cancelation of one or more claims of a patent based on grounds available
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 using prior art that consists of patents
`
`and printed publications.
`
`5
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`1.
`
`Anticipation and Prior Art
`
`19.
`
`I understand that § 102 specifies when a challenged claim is
`
`invalid for lacking novelty over the prior art, and that this concept is also known as
`
`“anticipation.” I understand that a prior art reference anticipates a challenged claim,
`
`and thus renders it invalid by anticipation, if all elements of the challenged claim are
`
`disclosed in the prior art reference. I understand the disclosure in the prior art
`
`reference can be either explicit or inherent, meaning it is necessarily present or
`
`implied. I understand that the prior art reference does not have to use the same words
`
`as the challenged claim, but all of the requirements of the claim must be disclosed
`
`so that a person of ordinary skill in the art could make and use the claimed subject-
`
`matter.
`
`20.
`
`In addition, I understand that § 102 also defines what is available
`
`for use as a prior art reference to a challenged claim.
`
`21.
`
`Under § 102(a), a challenged claim is anticipated if it was
`
`patented or described in a printed publication in the United States or a foreign
`
`country before the challenged claim’s date of invention.
`
`22.
`
`Under § 102(b), a challenged claim is anticipated if it was
`
`patented or described in a printed publication in the United States or a foreign
`
`country more than one year prior to the challenged patent’s filing date.
`
`6
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`23.
`
`Under § 102(e), a challenged claim is anticipated if it was
`
`described in published patent application that was filed by another in the United
`
`States before the challenge claim’s date of invention, or was described in a patent
`
`granted to another that was filed in the United States before the challenged claim’s
`
`date of invention.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a challenged claim’s date of invention is
`
`presumed to be the challenged patent’s filing date. I also understand that the patent
`
`owner may establish an earlier invention date and “swear behind” prior art defined
`
`by § 102(a) or § 102(e) by proving (with corroborated evidence) the actual date on
`
`which the named inventors conceived of the subject matter of the challenged claim
`
`and proving that the inventors were diligent in reducing the subject matter to
`
`practice.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that the filing date of patent is generally the filing
`
`date of the application filed in the United States that issued as the patent. However,
`
`I understand that a patent may be granted an earlier effective filing date if the patent
`
`owner properly claimed priority to an earlier patent application.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that when a challenged claim covers several
`
`structures, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if
`
`any of the structures within the scope of the claim is found in the prior art reference.
`
`7
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`27.
`
`I understand that when a challenged claim requires selection of
`
`an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the
`
`alternatives is taught by the prior art.
`
`B.
`
`28.
`
`Obviousness
`
`I understand that even if a challenged claim is not anticipated, it
`
`is still invalid if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art
`
`are such that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time the alleged invention.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that an obviousness must be determined with
`
`respect to the challenged claim as a whole.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that one cannot rely on hindsight in deciding
`
`whether a claim is obvious.
`
`31.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness analysis includes the
`
`consideration of factors such as (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the
`
`differences between the prior art and the challenged claim, (3) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinent art, and (4) “secondary” or “objective” evidence of non-
`
`obviousness.
`
`32.
`
`Secondary or objective evidence of non-obviousness includes
`
`evidence of: (1) a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by the
`
`claimed invention; (2) commercial success or the lack of commercial success of the
`
`8
`
`Page 11
`
`

`

`claimed invention; (3) unexpected results achieved by the claimed invention; (4)
`
`praise of the claimed invention by others skilled in the art; (5) taking of licenses
`
`under the patent by others; (6) deliberate copying of the claimed invention; and (7)
`
`contemporaneous and independent invention by others. However, I understand that
`
`there must be a relationship between any secondary evidence of non-obviousness
`
`and the claimed invention.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that a challenged claim can be invalid for
`
`obviousness over a combination of prior art references if a reason existed (at the time
`
`of the alleged invention) that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to combine elements of the prior art in the manner required by the challenged
`
`claim. I understand that this requirement is also referred to as a “motivation to
`
`combine,” “suggestion to combine,” or “reason to combine,” and that there are
`
`several rationales that meet this requirement.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that the prior art references themselves may provide
`
`a motivation to combine, but other times simple common sense can link two or more
`
`prior art references. I further understand that obviousness analysis recognizes that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references may come from market forces.
`
`35.
`
`I understand obviousness to include, for instance, scenarios
`
`where known techniques are simply applied to other devices, systems, or processes
`
`9
`
`Page 12
`
`

`

`to improve them in an expected or known way. I also understand that practical and
`
`common-sense considerations should be applied a proper obviousness analysis. For
`
`instance, familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that the combination of familiar elements according
`
`to known methods is obvious when it yields predictable results. For instance,
`
`obviousness bars patentability of a predictable variation of a technique even if the
`
`technique originated in another field of endeavor. This is because design incentives
`
`and other market forces can prompt variations of it, and predictable variations are
`
`not the product of innovation, but rather ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be obvious if it
`
`was obvious to try the combination. For example, when there is a design need or
`
`market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known
`
`options within his or her technical grasp. This would result in something obvious
`
`because the result is the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
`
`sense. However, I understand that it may not be obvious to try a combination when
`
`it involves unpredictable technologies.
`
`38.
`
`It is further my understanding that a proper obviousness analysis
`
`focuses on what was known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not
`
`just the patentee. Accordingly, I understand that any need or problem known in the
`
`10
`
`Page 13
`
`

`

`field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a
`
`reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`39.
`
`It is my understanding that the Manual of Patent Examining
`
`Procedure §2143 sets forth the following as exemplary rationales that support a
`
`conclusion of obviousness:
`
`40.
`
`Combining prior art elements according to known methods to
`
`yield predictable results;
`
`41.
`
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`42.
`
`Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`43.
`
`Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or
`
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`44.
`
`Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`45.
`
`Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of
`
`it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or
`
`other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`11
`
`Page 14
`
`

`

`46.
`
`Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that
`
`would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine
`
`prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`47.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art looking to overcome a
`
`problem will often use the teachings of multiple publications together like pieces of
`
`a puzzle, even though the prior art does not necessarily fit perfectly together.
`
`Therefore, I understand that references for obviousness need not fit perfectly
`
`together like puzzle pieces. Instead, I understand that obviousness analysis takes
`
`into account inferences, creative steps, common sense, and practical logic and
`
`applications that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`48.
`
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single
`
`reference, if the elements of the challenged claim that are not explicitly or inherently
`
`disclosed in the reference can be supplied by the common sense of one of skill in the
`
`art.
`
`49.
`
`I understand that obviousness also bars the patentability of
`
`applying known or obvious design choices to the prior art. One cannot patent merely
`
`substituting one prior art element for another if the substitution can be made with
`
`predictable results. Likewise, combining prior art techniques that are interoperable
`
`with respect to one another is generally obvious and not patentable.
`
`12
`
`Page 15
`
`

`

`50.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that obviousness invalidates claims
`
`that merely recite combinations of, or obvious variations of, prior art teachings using
`
`understanding and knowledge of one of skill in the art at the time and motivated by
`
`the general problem facing the inventor at the time. Under this analysis, the prior
`
`art references themselves, or any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at
`
`the time of the invention, can provide a reason for combining the elements of or
`
`attempting obvious variations on prior art references in the claimed manner.
`
`C.
`
`51.
`
`Legal Standard for Claim Construction
`
`I understand that before any invalidity analysis can be properly
`
`performed, the scope and meaning of the challenged claims must be determined by
`
`claim construction.
`
`52.
`
`I understand that a patent may include two types of claims,
`
`independent claims and dependent claims. I understand that an independent claim
`
`stands alone and includes only the limitations it recites. I understand that a
`
`dependent claim depends from an independent claim or another dependent claim. I
`
`understand that a dependent claim includes all the limitations that it recites in
`
`addition to the limitations recited in the claim (or claims) from which it depends.
`
`53.
`
`In comparing the challenged claims to the prior art, I have
`
`carefully considered the patent and its file history in light of the understanding of a
`
`person of skill at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`13
`
`Page 16
`
`

`

`54.
`
`I understand that to determine how a person of ordinary skill
`
`would have understood a claim term, one should look to sources available at the time
`
`of the alleged invention that show what a person of skill in the art would have
`
`understood disputed claim language to mean. It is my understanding that this may
`
`include what is called “intrinsic” evidence as well as “extrinsic” evidence.
`
`55.
`
`I understand that, in construing a claim term, one should
`
`primarily rely on intrinsic patent evidence, which includes the words of the claims
`
`themselves, the remainder of the patent specification, and the prosecution history. I
`
`understand that extrinsic evidence, which is evidence external to the patent and the
`
`prosecution history, may also be useful in interpreting patent claims when the
`
`intrinsic evidence itself is insufficient. I understand that extrinsic evidence may
`
`include principles, concepts, terms, and other resources available to those of skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention.
`
`56.
`
`I understand that words or terms should be given their ordinary
`
`and accepted meaning unless it appears that the inventors were using them to mean
`
`something else or something more specific. I understand that to determine whether
`
`a term has special meaning, the claims, the patent specification, and the prosecution
`
`history are particularly important, and may show that the inventor gave a term a
`
`particular definition or intentionally disclaimed, disavowed, or surrendered claim
`
`scope.
`
`14
`
`Page 17
`
`

`

`57.
`
`I understand that the claims of a patent define the scope of the
`
`rights conferred by the patent. I understand that because the claims point out and
`
`distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventors regard as their invention,
`
`claim construction analysis must begin with and is focused on the claim language
`
`itself. I understand that the context of the term within the claim as well as other
`
`claims of the patent can inform the meaning of a claim term. For example, because
`
`claim terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent, how a term is used
`
`in one claim can often inform the meaning of the same term in other claims.
`
`Differences among claims or claim terms can also be a useful guide in understanding
`
`the meaning of particular claim terms.
`
`58.
`
`I understand that a claim should be construed not only in the
`
`context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context
`
`of the entire patent, including the entire specification. I understand that because the
`
`specification is a primary basis for construing the claims, a correct construction must
`
`align with the specification.
`
`59.
`
`I understand that the prosecution history of the patent as well as
`
`art incorporated by reference or otherwise cited during the prosecution history are
`
`also highly relevant in construing claim terms. For instance, art cited by or
`
`incorporated by reference may indicate how the inventor and others of skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention understood certain terms and concepts. Additionally,
`
`15
`
`Page 18
`
`

`

`the prosecution history may show that the inventors disclaimed or disavowed claim
`
`scope or further explained the meaning of a claim term.
`
`60.
`
`With regard to extrinsic evidence, I understand that all evidence
`
`external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor
`
`testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises, can also be considered. For example,
`
`technical dictionaries may indicate how one of skill in the art used or understood the
`
`claim terms. However, I understand that extrinsic evidence is considered to be less
`
`reliable than intrinsic evidence, and for that reason is generally given less weight
`
`than intrinsic evidence.
`
`61.
`
`I understand that in general, a term or phrase found in the
`
`introductory words or preamble of the claim, should be construed as a limitation if
`
`it recites essential structure or steps, or is necessary to give meaning to the claim.
`
`For instance, I understand preamble language may limit claim scope: (i) if
`
`dependence on a preamble phrase for antecedent basis indicates a reliance on both
`
`the preamble and claim body to define the claimed invention; (ii) if reference to the
`
`preamble is necessary to understand limitations or terms in the claim body; or (iii) if
`
`the preamble recites additional structure or steps that the specification identifies as
`
`important.
`
`62.
`
`On the other hand, I understand that a preamble term or phrase is
`
`not limiting where a challenged claim defines a structurally complete invention in
`
`16
`
`Page 19
`
`

`

`the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the
`
`invention. I understand that to make this determination, one should review the entire
`
`patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors claim they invented and
`
`intended to encompass in the claims.
`
`63.
`
`I understand that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 created an exception to the
`
`general rule of claim construction called a “means plus function” limitation. These
`
`types of terms and limitations should be interpreted to cover only the corresponding
`
`structure described in the specification, and equivalents thereof. I also understand
`
`that a limitation is presumed to be a means plus function limitation if (a) the claim
`
`limitation uses the phrase “means for”; (b) the “means for” is modified by functional
`
`language; and (c) the phrase “means for” is not modified by sufficient structure for
`
`achieving the specified function.
`
`64.
`
`I understand that a structure is considered structurally equivalent
`
`to the corresponding structure identified in the specification only if the difference
`
`between them are insubstantial. For instance, if the structure performs the same
`
`function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. I
`
`further understand that a structural equivalent must have been available at the time
`
`of the issuance of the claim.
`
`17
`
`Page 20
`
`

`

`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`65.
`
`In determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the ’535 Patent at the time of the claimed invention,1 I
`
`considered several things, including various prior art techniques relating to data
`
`compression, the type of problems that such techniques gave rise to, and the rapidity
`
`with which innovations were made. I also considered the sophistication of the
`
`technologies involved, and the educational background and experience of those
`
`actively working in the field. I also considered the level of education that would be
`
`necessary to understand the ’535 Patent. Finally, I placed myself back in the relevant
`
`period of time and considered the engineers and programmers that I have worked
`
`with and managed in the field of video coding and decoding. I came to the conclusion
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the field of art of the ‘535 Patent would have been
`
`a person with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering,
`
`computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in data
`
`compression or a person with a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical
`
`1 I considered the level of ordinary skill in the art on February 13, 2001, the earliest
`
`claimed priority date for the ’535 Patent. I understand that Petitioners are not
`
`aware of any claim by the Patent Owner that the ’535 Patent is entitled to an earlier
`
`priority date.
`
`18
`
`Page 21
`
`

`

`engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in data
`
`compression. A person with less education but more relevant practical experience
`
`may also meet this standard.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`A.
`
`66.
`
`Overview of the ’535 Patent
`
`The ’535 Patent describes an arrangement of existing data
`
`compression algorithms for “compressing and decompressing based on the actual or
`
`expected throughput (bandwidth) of a system employing data compression.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 9:11-14, Abstract. The ’535 Patent describes “bottlenecks” in the throughput
`
`of a system and purports to address them by activating or deactivating different
`
`compression algorithms applied to data input to or output from a compression
`
`system. Ex. 1001 at 9:55-59. For example, the ’535 Patent changes between what it
`
`refers to as “asymmetric” and “symmetric” algorithms, and notes that asymmetric
`
`algorithms provide “a high compression ratio (to effectively increase the storage
`
`capacity of the hard disk) and fast data access (to effectively increase the retrieval
`
`rate from the hard disk).” Ex. 1001 at 13:29-34. I note that the specification states
`
`that an asymmetrical algorithm is “one in which the execution time for the
`
`compression and decompression routines differ significantly.” Ex. 1001 at 9:63-66.
`
`Asymmetric algorithms are discussed in opposition to symmetric algorithms, which
`
`“compris[e] a fast compression routine.” Ex. 1001 at 14:17-20. I note that the
`
`19
`
`Page 22
`
`

`

`specification states that a symmetrical algorithm is “one in which the execution time
`
`for the compression and the decompression routines are substantially similar.” Ex.
`
`100