`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NETFLIX, INC., AND
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01187 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01630 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`____________
`
`Oral Hearing Held: October 15, 2019
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and
`KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01187 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`IPR2018-01630 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONR:
`
`
`HARPER BATTS, ESQ.
`Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
`501 West Broadway
`19th Floor
`San Diego, CA 92101
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JOEL STONEDALE, ESQ.
`Noroozi, P.C.
`11601 Wilshire Boulevard
`Suite 2170
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, October
`15, 2019, commencing at 12:59 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01187 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`IPR2018-01630 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE CHERRY: Please be seated. Good afternoon. This is
`
`
`the hearing in IPR 2018-1187. I'm Judge Cherry and with me remotely are
`Judges Braden and Jivani and I'm going to turn it over to Judge Braden now
`that she's on the screen.
`
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Hello again. I'm Judge Braden. Also
`appearing remotely, as Judge Cherry mentioned, is Judge Jivani. As Judge
`Jivani and myself are appearing via video, we require counselors to speak
`directly into the microphone when talking and to identify specific slide
`numbers when referring to demonstratives.
`
`
`Per the Hearing Order which is paper 35 in this proceeding,
`each party has 75 minutes total time to argue their cases. Petitioner Netflix,
`Inc., along with Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, has the burden of
`establishing unpatentability, therefore Petitioner will open the hearing by
`presenting its case as presented in its petition regarding the alleged
`unpatentability of the challenged claims.
`
`
`Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time but no more than half of its
`total argument time. Thereafter, Patent Owner Realtime Adaptive
`Streaming, LLC, will respond to Petitioner's arguments. Patent Owner may
`reserve surrebuttal time of no more than half of its total argument time to
`respond to Petitioner's rebuttal. Otherwise, the parties may use their allotted
`time to discuss the case however you choose. We ask however that you
`make it clear which challenges and claims you are addressing. In order to
`ensure clarity of the record (indiscernible) the hearing, please provide the
`court reporter with a list of names and word spellings unless you have done
`
`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
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01187 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`IPR2018-01630 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`
`so already.
`Lastly, we ask that the parties hold any objections regarding the
`
`
`parties' arguments until it is their time at the podium. So just to be clear, we
`will not take objections during a parties' arguments. You must wait until it
`is your time at the podium to note any objections. I will maintain a clock
`and inform the parties when they have five minutes left and I believe in
`Alexandria you may have some lights up there that will also let you know
`the time that you have left.
`
`
`So let's go ahead and get started with appearances for both
`sides. We'll start with Petitioner.
`
`
`MR. BATTS: Yes, Your Honor. Harper Batts on behalf of
`Petitioner and along with me is my colleague, Chris Ponder.
`
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: All right. And Patent Owner?
`
`
`MR. STONEDALE: Thank you, Your Honor. My name is
`Joel Stonedale. I will be speaking for Netflix.
`
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Very good. Petitioner, do you wish to
`reserve any rebuttal time?
`
`
`MR. BATTS: Yes, Your Honor. Given that it appears
`Realtime has dropped some of its issues from the surreply based upon the
`slides that we see, I'm planning for 25 minutes of rebuttal time at this point.
`
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Very good. You may begin your
`arguments when ready.
`
`
`JUDGE CHERRY: Do we have an hour on this?
`
`
`MR. BATTS: An hour and 15 minutes, Your Honor, which is
`why I was (indiscernible.)
`
`
`JUDGE CHERRY: Oh, sorry, sorry, yes, that's right.
`
`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
`
`4
`
`

`

`MR. BATTS: So I was planning on 50 minutes for my --
`JUDGE CHERRY: That's why I was like -- sorry, I didn't
`
`IPR2018-01187 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`IPR2018-01630 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`realize.
`MR. BATTS: No problem, Your Honor. It's nice to have a
`
`
`clock in this room, so.
`
`
`JUDGE JIVANI: Counsel, I do want to just caution you, you
`mentioned a moment ago that you believe Patent Owner may have dropped
`some arguments. We remind you that as Petitioner you bear the ultimate
`burden of proof so if there are arguments that you would like to bring for
`which you carry the burden, we ask that you address those now and not
`make your argument dependent on what Patent Owner may or may not
`argue.
`MR. BATTS: Yes, understood, Your Honor. Good afternoon,
`
`
`Your Honors. This is a proceeding regarding two different -- actually two
`different proceedings regarding a single patent, the ’477 Realtime patent and
`I'm going to briefly go through the grounds that are laid out on slides 2 and 3
`of Petitioner's slides that primarily relate to the Imai and Pauls references.
`As you can see on slide 2 it's the 1187 proceeding, I'm going to try to refer to
`that as the 1187 proceeding for purposes today.
`
`
`The instituted grounds were all obviousness grounds that all
`include Imai or Pauls or a combination of Imai and Pauls and slide 3
`includes the overview of, again, all obviousness grounds. Again, all the
`grounds include either Imai, Pauls or some combination of those two
`references and so in terms of where we are I guess in this proceeding I think
`it's useful to look at the claims require basically two different things. One is
`that there's BA compressors with different data compression rates,
`
`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
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01187 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`IPR2018-01630 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`
`asymmetric compressors, and then that when you're looking at these
`encoders or compressors for selection you're looking at the throughput of the
`communication channel to determine which encoder to select, and for
`context what we don't have here is we don't have any dispute about Imai's
`teachings with respect to asymmetric encoders.
`
`
`The Patent Owner has not disputed that Imai's teaching
`asymmetric encoders and it's not disputing that Imai teaches looking at the
`throughput of the communication channel to select the appropriate encoder
`and they also don't dispute that Imai has encoders with different properties
`and we'll get into a little more of that a little later.
`
`
`Similarly, with respect to the Pauls reference the Patent Owner
`is not disputing that Pauls teaches asymmetric encoders and that Pauls
`teaches looking at the throughput of the communication channel to select the
`appropriate encoder.
`
`
`So if we go to slide 8, slide 8 of Petitioner's slides gives an
`overview of the kind of POSITA knowledge here in question as well as what
`the ’477 patent discusses or doesn't discuss and I think -- I won't go through
`all the bullets here but I do think that what is notable is the ’477 patent itself
`doesn't explain how to track the throughput of the communication channel
`and the ’477 patent doesn't describe how to actually make encoders with
`different data compression rates and we'll get into the execution speed or the
`data compression rate of the encoders because that's certainly one of the
`arguments that we have here.
`
`
`But I think I did want to highlight the lack of teachings or the
`lack of explanation in the ’477 patent about these issues, although there are a
`few portions of the ’477 specification I plan to address with you today on the
`
`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
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01187 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`IPR2018-01630 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`
`issue of compression rate or the execution speed of the encoder as well as
`the throughput because there's at least a few things that I think are helpful to
`note. So if I turn to slides 4 and 5 and I guess slides --
`
`
`JUDGE JIVANI: Before you do that can I just make sure I
`understood your point. With regard to the last slide, you're not in this venue
`arguing enablement or written description, correct? You're simply saying
`that the patent has these gaps in it? I'm not sure I understand your point.
`
`
`MR. BATTS: Sure. So, Your Honor, we are definitely not --
`this is not the forum, and there's not the jurisdiction to argue enablement or
`written description but what I do think is relevant for our discussion here
`today is really that the main portions and what the Patent Owner had claimed
`was the novelty of these claims are not in dispute here. As to asymmetric
`encoders, as to looking at the throughput of the communication channel for
`the selection of the encoder, those aren't things that are in any dispute here.
`
`
`So instead, what we're really talking about and that's what I'm
`getting at I guess to my next slide is what is left in the dispute is really this
`issue of limitation 1B of the ’477 patent about higher or lower data
`compression rates and what I want to point out is just how little there is in
`the ’477 patent on this issue and so the ’477 patent assumes that a POSITA
`would have knowledge about these issues in order to be able to operate the
`patent. So I don't think that's written description or enablement although I
`realize that they can overlap with the issue I'm discussing. I think it goes to
`what are you expecting to show for an obviousness challenge as to this and
`there's no dispute by the Patent Owner as to the proposed POSITA
`knowledge that was introduced in the petition and the knowledge that a
`POSITA would have when coming to address these claims for an
`
`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
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01187 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`IPR2018-01630 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`
`obviousness challenge because there's no anticipatory challenges here.
`
`
`JUDGE CHERRY: I mean the way I kind of understood your
`argument was that to the extent that Patent Owner is complaining that Imai
`or Pauls don't have this disclosure on these points, theirs kind of doesn't have
`it either.
`MR. BATTS: Yes. And I realize it's our burden of
`
`
`patentability but I still think that's a relevant point to make for I guess our
`burden of unpatentability, sorry.
`
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Can you confirm, do you still feel that
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of this invention would be
`somebody with a Bachelor's degree in electrical engineering or computer
`science with two years of experience or somebody who has a Master's
`degree?
`MR. BATTS: Yes, Your Honor. I don't believe there's any
`
`
`dispute on that, the proposed ordinary --
`
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: I mean do you believe that that's an
`appropriate characterization of a person of ordinary skill?
`
`
`MR. BATTS: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Okay. Thank you.
`
`
`MR. BATTS: So if we turn to slide 4 first, and I guess this will
`address Judge Jivani's caution to me at the beginning of the hearing about
`what I'm obligated to do. I guess I look at this, and what I'd like to go
`through if I may since I have a little more time here today, is I'd like to go
`through their first kind of twin arguments about the configure to language
`and whether we've specifically identified the first and second encoders in
`our petition and our accompanying declaration.
`
`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
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01187 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`IPR2018-01630 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`
`Then I think there's a question of have we shown higher and
`
`
`lower data compression rates for the encoders in question and I want to go
`through that as my second point and then it seems from what I see, Realtime
`is still arguing that the lack of motivation to combine as to the Imai and
`Pauls references and they're arguing the claim 20 limitations, whether we've
`properly addressed the claim 20 limitations. But I didn't see anything in
`their slides or any of their argument about the Winner International case or
`the combination of Chaofor slide 4 or the combination of Dawson on slide 5
`and I think our briefing -- we certainly addressed those issues in the briefing
`and I'm happy to take questions but that was the reason I pointed out what I
`plan to address here today.
`
`
`So moving first to I guess, I think of them as twin issues, is this
`argument and I think if we look at slide 22 of Petitioner's slides there's really
`twin arguments here by Patent Owner that I think tie together about whether
`the Petitioner or the petition has specifically identified the first and second
`encoders and this was an issue they raised in the POPR, it was addressed in
`the Institution decision and they continue to raise that issue here today and I
`think the second argument which I think is best shown in Patent Owner's
`slide 14 is an argument that we can't merely show, that what the configured
`to language of claim 1, we can't merely show that what happened by
`happenstance or by chance. So I think if you look at the top of their slide
`here they say Petitioner's argue that limitation 1B would be met by chance.
`So I think they both go to -- we didn't identify what are the first and second
`and you can't simply, with the “configure to” language, just kind of guess or
`like hope that the limitation is met.
`
`
`So I'd like to address both of those at the same time and I think
`
`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
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01187 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`IPR2018-01630 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`
`on the second point about it would be met by chance, we certainly are in no
`way -- I will go through the petition and the expert declaration and explain
`how we specifically identified in the Imai paragraphs what would be the first
`and second encoders and the teachings that are relevant there. But I think
`also this idea that we pointed out that it is almost impossible that the
`encoders wouldn't have data compression rates is the exact opposite of the
`frequent Patent Owner argument of hey, it's possible that out of your one out
`of 1,000 permutations or one out of 10,000 permutations you might have
`met this claim limitation. That doesn't make it obvious.
`
`
`We basically had, in our expert's opinion, the opposite, that it's
`almost never going to be that it would be the same data compression rate.
`That it's 999 or 9,999 out of 10,000 instances where that would be the
`occurrence. So I think I'd like to go through the petition, the declarations
`and deposition testimony with you here to show you that Imai specifically
`and purposely designed a system that has higher and lower data compression
`rate encoders and again, this data compression rate is really the execution
`speed of the encoders. That's what we explained in our petition. Patent
`Owner has not disputed that explanation of what we're talking about when
`we say data compression rate.
`
`
`So if we go to slide 10. At the highest level, I'd like to give us a
`kind of an overview of Imai before we get into paragraphs 67, 68 and some
`of these other paragraphs. Imai is teaching a system where you have a
`plurality of asymmetric encoders that you're choosing between. So it's the
`531 to N and it's teaching that the encoders have different coding methods or
`different properties and if you look at the clear teachings of paragraphs 145
`and I think 146 and it goes further than that, the clear teachings are not
`
`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
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01187 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`IPR2018-01630 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`
`disputed by Patent Owner is that Imai's purpose for having encoders with
`different properties or coding methods is to be able to choose between the
`encoders for the appropriate encoder, for the throughput of communication
`channel. Now Imai has other teachings that we've discussed in other IPR
`proceedings --
`
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Excuse me. If I understand Patent Owner's
`arguments correctly, they're saying well, you've got to be able to identify this
`is the first encoder and it specifically has an encryption rate with an
`algorithm that will always be faster than this my No. 2 encoder and if I
`understand their argument correctly, they're saying that's where Imai fails is
`that it doesn't say this is No. 1 and it's got this super fast encrypter and this is
`No. 2 with a slightly less fast encrypter algorithm?
`
`
`MR. BATTS: Yes. And that's where they're wrong because I
`would say first, that's basically an anticipation argument in a lot of ways
`rather than the obviousness argument that we're dealing with here. But if we
`go to the teachings of Imai, and I would say slide 12 has this paragraph 67 of
`Imai, Imai explains that the system is specifically constructed to utilize
`encoders that are using particular algorithms including asymmetric
`algorithms and I think it's been highly deceiving here that the Patent Owner
`has conflated and confused the terms algorithms with the implementations in
`the encoders.
`
`
`So I think a good example would be in Dr. Storer's deposition, I
`would say the pages that I would ask that you look at is pages 28 through 46
`as a really good example of where they repeatedly kept on asking him about
`MPEG or these other ATRAK as being the encoder and repeatedly Dr.
`Storer had to explain, consistent with the opinions I want to walk through in
`
`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
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01187 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`IPR2018-01630 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`
`his declaration, that they're saying an algorithm versus an encoder that's an
`implementation of an algorithm and so Imai is teaching that you have these
`algorithms that can be selected whether it be ATRAK or MPEG and the
`algorithms are a starting point for an implementation of the encoder. But
`both sides' experts are in agreement that when you look at a specific encoder
`that's implementing a particular algorithm, then you're going to have a
`specific execution rate of that a encoder rather than well, is MPEG faster
`than ATRAK where you're talking about or one MPEG versus another
`MPEG encoder is going to depend upon implementation but that's why we
`said a person of skill in the art would understand that because that's the
`whole purpose of Imai is to have these encoders with these different
`execution rates to allow for selection of the appropriate encoder based on
`what's happening in the communication channel and throughput of
`communication channel into making alteration as to the coding or the
`compression process, depending upon the changing conditions of the
`channel. It looks like you have a question.
`
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: So I want to make sure that I understand
`your point, is that Imai will specifically move the data blocks to the encoder
`that's implemented an algorithm that's going to be the fastest for that data
`block?
`MR. BATTS: I don't know that fastest for that data block is the
`
`
`right -- everything up until that point I agree with. I think what Imai is
`saying is it will change which encoder to utilize based upon the throughput
`of communication channel and I don't want to jump too quickly to
`compression rate because that's kind of where we're going.
`
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Okay.
`
`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
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01187 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`IPR2018-01630 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`
`MR. BATTS: But I do think that's where you start talking
`
`
`about ratio of the compression versus the speed at which the compression is
`occurring. But it's talking about -- I would say, the word I'd use is the
`appropriate encoder for the conditions of the communication channel, the
`throughput of the communication channel.
`
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Of the communications channel, not
`necessarily the data block itself? Okay.
`
`
`MR. BATTS: Correct. Imai has teachings about using the data
`type of the data block but that's not relevant for the claims that we're dealing
`with here but it has numerous teachings about what type of characteristics or
`properties you would use for the selection of the appropriate encoder and the
`ones that are here that match up exactly with the ’477 claims is looking at
`the throughput of the communication channel to say hey, which of these
`asymmetric encoders are we going to choose to use.
`
`
`So I think 67 is really a prime example and it was cited in the
`Institution decision for this idea of we were identifying specific encoders a
`person of skill in the art would know to use and also that the system
`specifically designed or constructed for the purpose of having encoders with
`these different properties to select between based upon what's happening in
`the communication channel. So I think that's where they cite to the
`ActiveVideo Networks case for this kind of proposition we didn't identify
`the specific encoders and, you know, our analysis isn't proper, but I think
`that this is actually useful for us to show that -- if you turn to page 1328 of
`this case and that's the page that they cited -- they talk about the testimony
`that the expert provided was generic and bears no relationship to any
`specific combination of prior art elements and I think it's quite the contrast
`
`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
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01187 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`IPR2018-01630 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`
`here where our expert walked through the teachings of Imai, including
`paragraphs 67 and 68 and said here's the type of information that the
`POSITA would have coming to address this issue as well as looking at Imai
`-- and we're going to get to Pauls as well too but I guess the examples here I
`think are most applicable to Imai -- to make a determination about what
`would be the most appropriate encoder.
`
`
`So it talks about, and I think that gets to the configured to and
`identification and I'd like to switch over to the compression rate issue
`because I know these all kind of tie in together but I want to make sure
`before I do if you have any questions on those issues.
`
`
`Okay. So compression rate. Again, the data compression rate
`is the term that Realtime is now arguing we haven't shown our position and
`our expert report insufficiently show that there is different data compression
`rates between the encoders that are being selected or that have the option to
`be selected and as I explained, the data compression rate in this patent in this
`proceeding is really talking about the execution speed or the computational
`speed of the encoder and so --
`
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Is this a term that we need to construe in
`order to be able to make a final decision?
`
`
`MR. BATTS: I don't believe so, Your Honor, because I don't
`believe there's any dispute between the parties as to that is the meaning. We
`haven't had any that I've seen even in whether formal or kinematic
`constructions, I haven't seen in this proceeding where the parties are
`disputing somehow the underlying meaning of the term.
`
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Okay. Thank you.
`
`
`MR. BATTS: But I do think if we go to slide 20, I do think it's
`
`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
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01187 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`IPR2018-01630 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`
`notable that while Realtime argues we haven't shown data compression rate
`in the art, even their own expert admitted that this type of usage of the term,
`this term wasn't the way that the concept was explained prior to their patent
`so unique to their patent. So while the concept was known, execution speed
`of the encoder or the processing of the encoder wasn't referred to as data
`compression rate. So this idea of finding a match, even their own expert is
`saying there's not going to be match in the art as to this term with a prior art
`reference. You have to look at what are we talking about and that's the
`execution speed of the encoder.
`
`
`So I think I'd like to turn to the patent itself here for a minute to
`kind of walk through what the patent has to say that's relevant for this issue
`of data compression rate and I turn first to column 1 and at the bottom of
`column 1 starting in line 63 it says,
`
`
`"Accordingly, a system and method that would provide
`dynamic modification of compression system parameters so as to provide an
`optimal balance between execution speed of the algorithm (compression
`rate) and the resulting compression ratio is highly desirable."
`
`
`So the patent introduces this concept of execution speed of the
`algorithm as being the compression rate but also introduces the idea that
`there's this balance that any encoder, you're having to balance when
`selecting an encoder, an encoder that has a particular ratio amount of
`compression that's actually occurring with the speed that you're getting that
`data out down to the system and I think that is going to get quite relevant
`when we're talking to Imai's teachings about having a real time transmission
`and looking at the throughput of the communication channel to allow for
`communications to occur and for data to be transmitted.
`
`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
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01187 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`IPR2018-01630 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`
`Columns 5 and 8 I think also have relevant teachings for us. So
`
`
`column 5, lines 22 to 40, kind of introduce this concept of showing
`decreasing execution speed but increasing the amount of the processing
`time. So again it goes to looking at what are we going to do for execution
`speed versus the ratio that we're going to compress the data. So different
`data you can compress more if you spend more time on it or depending on
`the type of data it may be more random and you get less compression. But
`there's this concept of you have a trade-off that you're looking for a
`compression, the execution and compression amount by ratio and the
`compression speed for how much the data gets out, and particularly relevant
`for us I think is column 8 starting at I would say line 10. It talks about the
`controller for tracking the throughput of the system and generating a control
`signal to select a compression routine based on the system throughput. In a
`preferred embodiment where the controller determines that the system
`throughput falls below a predetermined throughput threshold, the controller
`commands the data compression engine to use a compression routine
`providing a faster rate of compression so as to increase the throughput.
`
`
`So you're talking about faster compression and what's the
`purpose? To increase throughput and I think that's relevant for when we get
`into the discussion of what is Imai actually teaching and I guess go back to
`slide 12, please. What is Imai teaching and in paragraphs 67 and 68 Imai
`teaches here an example of five different encoders with five different
`properties. So it starts with on -- hang on I'm looking at my slides so I may
`not get the -- I guess five lines down stated otherwise language of Imai
`where it starts talking about in the embodiment you would have two
`encoders that would have higher and lower bit rate. Then it goes on to talk
`
`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
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01187 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`IPR2018-01630 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`
`about two encoders that would have different amounts of computation and
`then lastly it talks about an encoder that would be particularly suitable for
`coding a voice.
`
`
`Now the voice coding encoder I don't think is relevant to our
`discussion, but as to the first two encoders and to the second two encoders,
`the first two encoders -- and as explained by Dr. Storer and I want to walk
`through his declaration next here paragraph by paragraph where he does this
`because I think a lot of the arguments are about we didn't show this rather
`than being some argument about the actual substantive merits -- the first two
`encoders are talking about the compression ratio, higher and lower
`compression ratio and in the second two encoders they're talking about the
`computation, the large amount of computation and it has the (indiscernible)
`such a method usually also requires the larger amount of computation for
`coding. That's talking about data compression ratio, the execution speed of
`the encoder.
`So we have both teachings here in a specific teaching beyond
`
`
`the general teachings of Imai that Imai is saying you have two encoders with
`varying or higher and lower compression rates and higher and lower
`compression ratios and I want to tie that into rather than you just hearing it
`from me and get an argument that this is attorney argument, I think it's worth
`spending the time to go to the actual declaration where Dr. Storer explains
`this. So if we go to --
`
`
`JUDGE CHERRY: So really regardless of whatever way you
`construe it Imai teaches it?
`
`
`MR. BATTS: Yes.
`
`
`JUDGE CHERRY: Okay.
`
`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
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01187 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`IPR2018-01630 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`
`MR. BATTS: And with respect to claim 20 that's dealing with
`
`
`ratios, and I'm jumping around a little bit, but that claim 20 deals with ratios
`versus compression rates paragraph 67 is teaching both principles with two
`different encoders for each. I apologize, Your Honors, but I guess I should
`be clear. I'm going to refer to Dr. Storer's declarations from the 1187
`proceeding when I walk through the paragraphs and I think the similar
`paragraphs are in both, but I was just planning to walk through one for ease.
`
`
`So if you go to paragraph 132 of Dr. Storer's -- and I guess I
`should note for the record at least that petition page 22 starts addressing
`these issues and then I'm going to, the citations from the petition in Dr.
`Storer's --
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1003.
`JUDGE BRADEN: It is.
`
`
`MR. BATTS: So 1187. So if we start at paragraph 132 Dr.
`
`
`Storer provided an explanation about the implementations of the algorithms.
`So he discussed not that we're looking at MPEG, we're looking at the
`implementation of MPEG as an example and he pointed out the lack of
`discussion in the 477 patent.
`
`
`The following paragraph 133 he starts providing an explanation
`of Imai's general teachings about a system that is designed to look at
`compressing, transmitting and receiving signals. Then in paragraph 134 he
`says,
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: And this is Exhibit 1003, correct?
`MR. BATTS: Correct. But those --
`JUDGE BRADEN: The original declaration and petition?
`MR. BATTS: In both proceedings I believe the declaration is
`
`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
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01187 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`IPR2018-01630 (Patent 9,769,477 B2)
`
`"A POSITA would have understood that Imai teaches that the
`
`
`execution speed of the encoder/decompressor and the bandwidth connecting
`both must be sufficiently fine or the system will fail to achieve real time
`reproduction. For example, Imai teaches that even if there's sufficient
`bandwidth the complexity of the compression algorithm and the speed of the
`decompressor affect whether real time reproduction can be achieved."
`
`
`So this idea that we didn't address in our petition or in our
`expert declaration the execution speed of the encoder and Imai's teachings of
`that simply isn't true when looking at the