Sling TV, L.L.C., et al. (Petitioners)
`v.
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (Patent Owner)
`
`Demonstratives
`Trial No. IPR2018-01331
`U.S. Patent No. 8,867,610
`
`Before Hon. Kevin W. Cherry, Garth D. Baer, and Nabeel U. Khan,
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`100
`
` 1
`
`DISH 1030
`Sling TV v. Realtime
`IPR2018-01331
`
`
`v.
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (Patent Owner)
`
`Demonstratives
`Trial No. IPR2018-01331
`U.S. Patent No. 8,867,610
`
`Before Hon. Kevin W. Cherry, Garth D. Baer, and Nabeel U. Khan,
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`100
`
` 1
`
`DISH 1030
`Sling TV v. Realtime
`IPR2018-01331
`
`
`
`Background and Summary of Issues
`
`Grounds 1 and 2: Vishwanath
`
`Issue 1: Single Disclosure Demonstrates Anticipation
`
`Issue 2: “Compression Algorithms Being Asymmetric”
`
`Issue 3: “Selecting . . . Compression Algorithms . . . Based
`Upon . . . A Throughput of a Communication Channel”
`
`Issue 4: “Data Block”
`
`Ground 3: Vishwanath and Ishii
`
`Issue 1: Explicit and Art-Specific Motivations to Combine
`
`Ground 4: Vishwanath and Kalra
`
`Issue 1: Explicit and Art-Specific Motivations to Combine
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`101
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Summary of Grounds
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`Ground 1
`
`1, 6, 9, 16
`
`Anticipated by Vishwanath - 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`Ground 2
`
`1, 6, 9, 16 Obvious over Vishwanath - 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Ground 3
`
`14
`
`Obvious over Vishwanath in view of Ishii -
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Ground 4
`
`2, 8, 10-13,
`18
`
`Obvious over Vishwanath in view of Kalra -
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`102
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Alleged Innovation of the ’610 Patent
`
`The ’610 and ’535 Patents share the same specification
`The ’610 Patent selects compression algorithms based on
`throughput (bandwidth) in addition to data type (like the ’535 Patent)
`
`DISH1001, Abstract, 10:37-42; 11:25-35, Fig. 1; Paper 2 (Petition), pp. 7-8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`103
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Alleged Innovation of the ’610 Patent – Selecting Compression
`Algorithms Based on Data Type and Throughput
`
`The ’610 Patent’s controller (11) tracks throughput and
`enables/disables different compression algorithms (13) to eliminate
`bottlenecks in the compression system (12)
`
`DISH1001, Abstract, 10:37-42; 11:25-35, Fig. 1; Paper 2 (Petition), pp. 7-8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`104
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Summary of Vishwanath
`
`Vishwanath discloses a content delivery system (i.e., server) for
`sending multimedia data over a transmission medium to a client
`
`DISH1004, Fig. 2; Paper 2 (Petition), pp. 27-28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`105
`
` 6
`
`
`
`The ’610 Patent Claims Select an Algorithm Based on
`the Data and Throughput
`
`1. A method, comprising:
`
`determining, a parameter or an attribute of at least a
`portion of a data block having video or audio data;
`
`selecting one or more compression algorithms from
`among a plurality of compression algorithms to apply to the
`at least the portion of the data block based upon the
`determined parameter or attribute and a throughput of a
`communication channel, at least one of the plurality of
`compression algorithms being asymmetric; and
`
`compressing the at least the portion of the data block
`with the selected compression algorithm after selecting the
`one or more, compression algorithms.
`
`DISH1001, 20:2-13; see Paper 2 (Petition), pp. 26-34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`106
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Vishwanath “determin[es], a parameter or an attribute of at least
`a portion of a data block having video or audio data”
`
`Vishwanath explicitly evaluates “input data type”
`
`DISH1004, 6:50-67, Abstract; Paper 2 (Petition), p. 30-34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`107
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Vishwanath “select[s] one or more compression algorithms …
`based upon the determined parameter or attribute and a
`throughput of a communication channel”
`
`Vishwanath’s “adaptive-transmission transducer” 152 selects the
`compression algorithm based on characteristics of the “application”
`(i.e., data) and the bandwidth of the transmission medium
`
`DISH1004, Abstract, Fig. 2; Paper 2 (Petition), pp. 27-28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`108
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Vishwanath “select[s] one or more compression algorithms … based
`upon the determined parameter or attribute and a throughput of a
`communication channel”
`
`Vishwanath explicitly identifies data type and transmission medium as
`two criteria used for compression algorithm selection
`
`DISH1004, 6:50-67; Paper 2 (Petition), p. 30-34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`109
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Vishwanath “compress[es] the at least the portion of the data
`block with the selected compression algorithm
`
`Vishwanath’s “adaptive-transmission transducer” modifies
`(compresses) the data based on data type and transmission medium
`
`DISH1004, 4:51-65, Fig. 3; Paper 2 (Petition), p. 34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`110
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Vishwanath Discloses All Limitations of Claim 1
`
`Claim 1
`
`Vishwanath
`
`1. A method, comprising:
`determining, a parameter or an attribute of at least
`a portion of a data block having video or audio
`data;
`
`selecting one or more compression algorithms from
`among a plurality of compression algorithms to
`apply to the at least the portion of the data block
`based upon the determined parameter or attribute
`and a throughput of a communication channel, at
`least one of the plurality of compression algorithms
`being asymmetric; and
`
`compressing the at least the portion of the data
`block with the selected compression algorithm after
`selecting the one or more, compression algorithms.
`
`DISH1001, 20:2-13; see Paper 2 (Petition), pp. 26-34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`111
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Realtime Did Not Contest During Prosecution that
`Vishwanath Discloses These Key Features
`
`Realtime instead overcame Vishwanath by amending the claims to
`require “asymmetric” compression algorithms
`
`DISH1002, pp. 399-418; Paper 2 (Petition), pp. 11-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`112
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`But Realtime Did Not Inform the Examiner that Vishwanath
`Uses Lempel-Ziv Compression Like the ’610 Patent
`
`The ’610 Patent explicitly states Lempel-Ziv is asymmetric
`
`’610 Patent
`
`Vishwanath
`
`DISH1001, 9:60-10:4; DISH1004, 6:50-67; Paper 2 (Petition), pp. 11-12, 32-34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`113
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Issues Are Narrow
`
`Claim Term
`
`Realtime
`
`DISH
`
`“Data Block”
`
`“a single unit of data, which may range in size from
`individual bits through complete files or collection of
`multiple files”
`
`“Parameter”
`
`No construction necessary
`
`“any recognizable data
`token or descriptor”
`
`“Compression
`algorithms being
`asymmetric”
`
`“compression algorithm in
`which the execution time
`for compression and
`decompression differ
`significantly”
`
`“algorithm where the
`compression of data and
`decompression of that
`compressed data take
`different amounts of
`time”
`
`*Substantive differences shown in red
`
`Paper 2 (Petition), pp. 13-16; Paper 16 (Patent Owner Response), pp. 9-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`114
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Background and Summary of Issues
`
`Grounds 1 and 2: Vishwanath
`Issue 1: Single Disclosure Demonstrates Anticipation
`
`Issue 2: “Compression Algorithms Being Asymmetric”
`
`Issue 3: “Selecting . . . Compression Algorithms . . . Based
`Upon . . . A Throughput of a Communication Channel”
`
`Issue 4: “Data Block”
`
`Ground 3: Vishwanath and Ishii
`
`Issue 1: Explicit and Art-Specific Motivations to Combine
`
`Ground 4: Vishwanath and Kalra
`
`Issue 1: Explicit and Art-Specific Motivations to Combine
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`115
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Issue 1 (Grounds 1 and 2): Vishwanath Properly Anticipates
`
`DISH does not rely on different embodiments of Vishwanath to show
`anticipation as Realtime contends
`
`it
`reference will anticipate if
`“A prior art
`the
`disclose[s] each and every element of
`claimed invention . . . arranged or combined in
`the same way as in the claim. . . . However, a
`reference can anticipate a claim even if it d[oes]
`not expressly spell out all
`the limitations
`arranged or combined as in the claim,
`if a
`person of skill in the art, reading the reference,
`would
`at
`once
`envisage
`the
`claimed
`arrangement or combination.”
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)
`
`Paper 26 (Reply), p. 7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`116
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Issue 1 (Grounds 1 and 2): Vishwanath Properly
`Anticipates
`
`Realtime presents no evidence that DISH relied on multiple
`embodiments to demonstrate anticipation
`
`Dr. Ken Zeger
`
`Realtime’s Technical
`Expert
`
`DISH1026, 116:12-17; 121:18-122:10; Paper 23 (Reply), pp. 3-4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`117
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Vishwanath Discloses a Single “Client-Server System”
`that Anticipates the Challenged Claims
`
`Figs. 2 and 3 of Vishwanath relate to the same system embodiment—Fig.
`2 shows the system while Fig. 3 shows the corresponding method
`
`DISH1004, 4:51-57, Figs. 2, 3; Paper 23 (Reply), p. 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`118
`
`Fig. 2
`
`Fig. 3
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Vishwanath Discloses a Single “Client-Server System”
`that Anticipates the Challenged Claims
`
`Figure 4 of Vishwanath shows examples of the
`appliance-specific transducer 150
`
`Paper 23 (Reply), p. 4; DISH1004, 5:13-17, Figs. 2, 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`119
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Vishwanath Discloses a Single “Client-Server System”
`that Anticipates the Challenged Claims
`
`Figure 5 of Vishwanath shows details of the
`adaptive-transmission transducer 152
`
`Paper 23 (Reply), p. 4; DISH1004, 6:8-14, Figs. 2, 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`120
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Vishwanath Discloses a Single “Client-Server System”
`that Anticipates the Challenged Claims
`
`Figure 6 of Vishwanath
`shows examples of the
`information considered by
`Adaptive transducer 152
`
`Paper 23 (Reply), p. 4; DISH1004, 6:15-32, Figs. 2, 6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`121
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Vishwanath Discloses a Single “Client-Server System”
`that Anticipates the Challenged Claims
`
`Figure 7 of Vishwanath
`shows more details on the
`operation of the
`Adaptive-transmission
`Transducer 152
`
`Paper 23 (Reply), p. 4; DISH1004, 7:1-17, Figs. 2, 7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`122
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Vishwanath Discloses a Single “Client-Server System”
`that Anticipates the Challenged Claims
`
`Figures 8A and 8B of Vishwanath show example operations performed by
`the adaptive packetizer 252 of the adaptive-transmission transducer 152
`
`Paper 23 (Reply), p. 4; DISH1004, 7:18-21, Figs. 5, 8A-8B
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`123
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Vishwanath Discloses a Single “Client-Server System”
`that Anticipates the Challenged Claims
`
`Figures 9A and 9B show examples of the method of Figure 3 performed
`by the system of Figure 2
`
`DISH1004, 7:43-49, Figs. 3, 9A-9B; Paper 23 (Reply), p. 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`124
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`Vishwanath Does Not Use “Embodiment” To Describe
`Different Systems as Realtime Alleges
`
`Vishwanath uses “embodiment”
`to describe two applications of
`the same invention (right)
`
`Vishwanath uses “embodiment”
`to describe two aspects (e.g.,
`system and method) of the same
`invention (below)
`
`DISH1004, 2:23-46, 4:47-57; Paper 23 (Reply), p. 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`125
`
`
`26
`
`
`
`The PTAB Has Already Rejected Realtime’s “Multiple
`Embodiments” Argument
`
`“That Tian itself includes what it characterizes as “one or
`more embodiments,” “one or more other embodiments,”
`“other exemplary embodiments,” or “additional embodiments”
`does not undermine Petitioner’s position. It is what the Petition
`relies on that matters.
`With respect to limitation 1.b, Patent Owner’s citations do not
`establish Petitioner
`is
`relying
`on
`separate
`and
`distinct
`embodiments. The use of “various implementations” in the table’s
`citation to Tian’s column 31 does not specify any embodiment. See
`Ex. 1004, 31:46–50. The other citation to Tian is directed to a
`particular embodiment (“[i]n this implementation”) and does not
`raise a separate and distinct embodiment from the first cite. See id.
`at 34:7–14. Significantly, the Petition does not rely on either of the
`citations identified by Patent Owner. Petitioner cites to various
`parts of Tian but, as noted above in our analysis of claim 1, the
`primary disclosures cited are not separate or distinct from the
`broadest disclosure of Tian. At this stage, additional citations
`to Tian beyond the primary disclosure are not required to
`establish unpatentability.”
`
`Amazon Inc. et al. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC, IPR2018-01227, Paper 15
`(Institution Decision), 21; Paper 23 (Reply), p. 6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`126
`
`
`27
`
`
`
`Net MoneyIN Supports DISH’s Position, Not Realitme’s
`
`In Net MoneyIN, the Federal Circuit rejected an
`anticipation theory that relied on
`“two mutually exclusive” embodiments
`
`As illustrated by our colloquy with counsel at oral
`argument, it is not clear whether the payment models
`disclosed in the iKP reference are mutually exclusive.
`Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to NMI,
`however, as we must do at
`this stage in the
`proceedings, the reference is properly construed to
`show two mutually exclusive payment models.
`
`Net MoneyIN v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1363 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`Paper 23 (Reply), pp. 3-4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`127
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`Issue 2 (Grounds 1 and 2): Vishwanath Discloses “Asymmetric”
`Compression Under Either Party’s Constructions
`
`Claim Construction – the only substantive difference in the parties’
`proposed constructions is whether the compression/decompression
`speeds must differ “significantly”
`
`Realtime
`
`DISH
`
`“compression algorithm in which the
`execution time for compression and
`decompression differ significantly”
`
`“algorithm where the compression of
`data and decompression of that
`compressed data take different
`amounts of time”
`
`Paper 23 (Reply), p. 7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`128
`
`
`29
`
`
`
`Realtime’s Construction Should Not Be Adopted
`
`The addition of “significantly” to the construction adds only
`unnecessary confusion
`Realtime’s expert admitted the specification does not explain
`which differences are “significant”
`
`Dr. Ken Zeger
`
`Realtime’s Technical
`Expert
`
`DISH1026, 35:16-23; Paper 23 (Reply), p. 8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`129
`
`
`30
`
`
`
`Vishwanath’s Lempel-Ziv Satisfies “Asymmetric” Compression
`Under Either Party’s Proposed Construction
`
`Vishwanath discloses Lempel-Ziv, which the ’610 Patent
`specifically refers to as an “asymmetric” compression algorithm
`Realtime does not dispute that Lempel-Ziv is asymmetric under
`both constructions
`
`Vishwanath
`
`’610 Patent
`
`DISH1001, 9:60-10:4; DISH1004, 6:50-67; Paper 2 (Petition), pp. 11-12, 32-34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`130
`
`
`31
`
`
`
`Vishwanath’s Lempel-Ziv Satisfies “Asymmetric” Compression
`Under Either Party’s Proposed Construction
`
`Vishwanath discloses Lempel-Ziv (“LZ”) is one of the compression
`algorithms available for selection
`
`Paper 23 (Reply), p. 12; DISH1004, 6:50-67, Fig. 7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`131
`
`
`32
`
`
`
`Vishwanath’s Lempel-Ziv Satisfies “Asymmetric” Compression
`Under Either Party’s Proposed Construction
`
`Realtime’s argument that Vishwanath does not satisfy this limitation
`because it does not use Lempel-Ziv to compress audio/video data is inapt
`
`Paper 16 (Patent Owner Response), p. 25-27; Paper 23 (Reply), p. 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`132
`
`
`33
`
`
`
`Vishwanath’s Lempel-Ziv Satisfies “Asymmetric” Compression
`Under Either Party’s Proposed Construction
`
`Claim 1 of the ’610 Patent does not require using asymmetric compression
`to compress the audio or video data—only that it is one of the plurality of
`compression algorithms
`
`1. A method, comprising:
`
`determining, a parameter or an attribute of at least a portion of a data
`block having video or audio data;
`
`selecting one or more compression algorithms from among a
`plurality of compression algorithms to apply to the at least the portion of
`the data block based upon the determined parameter or attribute and a
`throughput of a communication channel, at least one of the plurality of
`compression algorithms being asymmetric; and
`
`compressing the at least the portion of the data block with the
`selected compression algorithm after selecting the one or more,
`compression algorithms.
`
`DISH1001, 20:2-13; Paper 16 (Patent Owner Response), p. 25; Paper 23 (Reply), p. 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`133
`
`
`34
`
`
`
`Vishwanath’s MPEG Algorithms Are Asymmetric Under DISH’s
`Construction
`
`No dispute that MPEG is an “algorithm where the compression of data and
`decompression of that compressed data take different amounts of time”
`
`DISH1004, 6:50-67
`
`DISH1021, DVD Demystified, p. 127
`
`Dr. Zeger
`
`Realtime’s Technical
`Expert
`
`DISH1003, ¶¶ 68-69; DISH1026, 60:2-8; Paper 23 (Reply), pp. 8-10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`134
`
`
`35
`
`
`
`Vishwanath’s MPEG Algorithms Satisfy “Asymmetric”
`Compression Under Realtime’s Construction
`
`Disclosed MPEG algorithms have computationally-intensive
`compression, which takes significantly longer than decompression
`
`Dr. Scott Acton
`
`DISH’s Technical
`Expert
`
`DISH1003, ¶ 68; DISH1027, ¶ 26; Paper 23 (Reply), pp. 8-10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`135
`
`
`36
`
`
`
`Vishwanath’s MPEG Algorithms Satisfy “Asymmetric”
`Compression Under Realtime’s Construction
`
`Realtime’s expert has no opinion under Realtime’s construction
`
`Dr. Zeger
`
`Realtime’s Technical
`Expert
`
`DISH1026, 60:2-8; Paper 23 (Reply), pp. 8-10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`136
`
`
`37
`
`
`
`Vishwanath Discloses that “each compression
`algorithm” Is Asymmetric
`
`Claims 6 and 16 require that each of the plurality of compression
`algorithms be asymmetric
`
`6. The method of claim 1, wherein each compression
`algorithm from among the plurality of compression
`algorithms is asymmetric.
`
`16. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein each
`compression algorithm from among the plurality of
`compression algorithms is asymmetric.
`
`DISH1001, 20:31-32, 21:31-33; Paper 23 (Reply), pp. 20-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`137
`
`
`38
`
`
`
`Vishwanath Discloses that “each compression
`algorithm” Is Asymmetric
`
`Vishwanath discloses at least four asymmetric compression algorithms
`
`DISH1004, 6:62-67; Paper 23 (Reply), pp. 20-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`138
`
`
`39
`
`
`
`Vishwanath Discloses that “each compression algorithm” Is
`Asymmetric
`
`A POSITA would have understood that Vishwanath discloses and
`renders obvious that each of the compression algorithms is asymmetric
`
`Dr. Scott Acton
`
`DISH’s Technical
`Expert
`
`DISH1027, ¶¶ 55-56; see generally DISH1027, ¶¶ 52-57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`139
`
`
`40
`
`
`
`Issue 3 (Grounds 1 and 2): Vishwanath Selects Compression
`Algorithms Based On Throughput
`
`Vishwanth and ’610 Patent both select a compression algorithm based
`on a bandwidth/throughput
`
`’610 Patent
`
`Vishwanath
`
`DISH1001, Abstract, 1:22-26, 7:52-56, 9:11-14, 11:26-30;
`DISH1004, 2:60-65, 6:50-62, 8:57-59; Paper 2 (Petition), pp. 30-34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`140
`
`
`41
`
`
`
`Issue 3 (Grounds 1 and 2): Vishwanath Selects Compression
`Algorithms Based On Throughput
`
`Realtime’s assertion that Vishwanath only tracks “static” bandwidth
`is wrong
`Vishwanath monitors changes in bandwidth to address the
`problems created in the prior art by varying bandwidths
`
`DISH1004, 1:45-57; Paper 23 (Reply), pp. 15-16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`141
`
`
`42
`
`
`
`Issue 3 (Grounds 1 and 2): Vishwanath Selects Compression
`Algorithms Based On Throughput
`
`Vishwanath explicitly monitors whether the throughput is > 1 Mbps
`or < 1 Mbps
`
`DISH1004, Fig. 9B; Paper 23 (Reply), p. 16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`142
`
`
`43
`
`
`
`Issue 3 (Grounds 1 and 2): Vishwanath Selects Compression
`Algorithms Based On Throughput
`
`Vishwanath’s bandwidth is a variable bandwidth, else there would be no
`need to monitor it
`
`Dr. Scott Acton
`
`DISH’s Technical
`Expert
`
`DISH1027, ¶ 38; see generally DISH1027, ¶¶ 37-41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`143
`
`
`44
`
`
`
`Realtime’s Attempt To Limit “Throughput” to Variable
`Throughput Fails
`
`Realtime fails to offer a construction that would exclude “static”
`throughputs or why the plain meaning would be so limiting
`Realtime also fails to show that the ’610 patent excludes “static”
`throughputs
`
`Realtime provides no evidence that “expected throughput” excludes
`“static” throughput
`
`DISH1001, Abstract; Paper 23 (Reply), pp. 17-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`144
`
`
`45
`
`
`
`Issue 3 (Grounds 1 and 2): Vishwanath Selects Compression
`Algorithms Based On Throughput
`
`At the very least, it would be obvious to a POSITA to consider
`variable throughput
`
`Dr. Scott Acton
`
`DISH’s Technical
`Expert
`
`DISH1027, ¶ 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`145
`
`
`46
`
`
`
`Issue 4 (Grounds 1 and 2): Vishwanath Discloses “Data
`Blocks”
`
`Agreed-Upon Construction of “Data Block” is extremely broad
`
`Agreed-Upon Construction
`
`“a single unit of data, which may range in size
`from individual bits through complete files or
`collection of multiple files”
`
`See Paper 16 (Patent Owner Response), pp. 9-10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`146
`
`
`47
`
`
`
`Vishwanath’s “Applications” Are “Data Blocks”
`
`Realtime’s argument that
`Vishwanath’s applications
`are “user functions” is
`wrong
`
`Vishwanath is clear that its
`applications are data blocks
`that have different data
`types
`
`Vishwanath also modifies (i.e.,
`compresses) “applications,”
`confirming that “applications” are
`data blocks
`
`DISH1004, 2:28-32, 5:1-12, 6:50-55; Paper 2 (Petition), pp. 26-27; Paper 23 (Reply), pp. 19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`147
`
`
`48
`
`
`
`Background and Summary of Issues
`
`Grounds 1 and 2: Vishwanath
`Issue 1: Single Disclosure Demonstrates Anticipation
`
`Issue 2: “Compression Algorithms Being Asymmetric”
`
`Issue 3: “Selecting . . . Compression Algorithms . . . Based
`Upon . . . A Throughput of a Communication Channel”
`
`Issue 4: “Data Block”
`
`Ground 3: Vishwanath and Ishii
`
`Issue 1: Explicit and Art-Specific Motivations to Combine
`
`Ground 4: Vishwanath and Kalra
`
`Issue 1: Explicit and Art-Specific Motivations to Combine
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`148
`
`
`49
`
`
`
`Issue 1 (Ground 3): a POSITA Would Be Motivated to
`Combine Vishwanath and Ishii
`
`Claim 14 adds the requirement that the compression algorithm is
`selected based on a “frequency of access”
`Realtime does not dispute that Ishii discloses selecting a
`compression algorithm based on “frequency of access”
`
`14. The apparatus of claim 9,
`wherein the controller is configured to
`select the one or more compression
`algorithms to apply to the at least the
`portion of the data block based upon
`the determined parameter or attribute,
`the throughput of the communication
`channel, and a frequency of access
`of at least the portion of a second
`compressed or uncompressed data
`block.
`
`
`
`DISH1001, 21:20-26; DISH1005, 7:15-34; Paper 2 (Petition), pp. 50-53
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`149
`
`
`50
`
`
`
`Issue 1 (Ground 3): a POSITA Would Be Motivated to
`Combine Vishwanath and Ishii
`
`A POSITA would modify Vishwanath’s Adaptive-Transmission
`Transducer 152 to consider file access frequency in addition to the data
`type and throughput
`
`Vishwanath
`
`Ishii
`
`DISH1004, Fig. 2; DISH1005, Fig. 1; Paper 2 (Petition), pp. 48-49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`150
`
`
`51
`
`
`
`Issue 1 (Ground 3): a POSITA Would Be Motivated to
`Combine Vishwanath and Ishii
`
`A POSITA would modify Vishwanath’s Adaptive-Transmission
`Transducer 152 to consider file access frequency in addition to the data
`type and throughput
`
`Vishwanath
`
`Ishii
`
`DISH1004, 6:50-61, Fig. 2; DISH1005, 7:16-21, Fig. 1; Paper 2 (Petition), pp. 48-49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`151
`
`
`52
`
`
`
`Issue 1 (Ground 3): a POSITA Would Be Motivated to
`Combine Vishwanath and Ishii
`
`Realtime’s two reasons why a POSITA would not combine Vishwanath
`and Ishii are unsupported
`
`1. “Vishwanath and Ishii have different principles of operation”
`
`2. “A POSITA would further not be motivated to combine
`Vishwanath and Ishii because it would add complexity”
`
`Paper 16 (Patent Owner Response), pp. 42-45
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`152
`
`
`53
`
`
`
`Realtime’s First Argument Fails: The location of
`Decompression Is Not a Significant Difference in Operation
`
`Vishwanath
`(remote decompression)
`
`Ishii
`(local decompression)
`
`Dr. Scott Acton
`
`DISH’s Technical
`Expert
`
`“Vishwanath’s server is very similar to Ishii’s file
`system—the primary difference between the
`two is that Vishwanath’s server delivers files to
`remote clients, while Ishii’s file system delivers
`files to terminals on the same network.”
`
`DISH1004, Fig. 2; DISH1005, Fig. 1; DISH1027, ¶ 63 Paper 23 (Reply), pp. 22-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`153
`
`
`54
`
`
`
`Realtime’s Second Argument Fails: The Benefits of Tracking
`Access Frequency Outweigh Any Added Complexity
`
`Tracking access frequency incurs minimal added complexity
`
`Dr. Scott Acton
`
`DISH’s Technical
`Expert
`
`DISH1027, ¶ 67; Paper 23 (Reply), 24-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`154
`
`
`55
`
`
`
`The Benefits of Tracking Access Frequency Outweigh Any
`Added Complexity
`
`Considering access frequency in selecting a compression algorithm
`reduces end-user latency with minimal added complexity
`
`DISH1005, 7:21-33; Paper 23 (Reply), pp. 24-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`155
`
`
`56
`
`
`
`Background and Summary of Issues
`
`Grounds 1 and 2: Vishwanath
`Issue 1: Single Disclosure Demonstrates Anticipation
`
`Issue 2: “Compression Algorithms Being Asymmetric”
`
`Issue 3: “Selecting . . . Compression Algorithms . . . Based
`Upon . . . A Throughput of a Communication Channel”
`
`Issue 4: “Data Block”
`
`Ground 3: Vishwanath and Ishii
`
`Issue 1: Explicit and Art-Specific Motivations to Combine
`
`Ground 4: Vishwanath and Kalra
`
`Issue 1: Explicit and Art-Specific Motivations to Combine
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`156
`
`
`57
`
`
`
`Vishwanath and Kalra Render Obvious Claims 2, 8, 10-13, 18
`
`DISH Relies on the combination of Vishwanath and Kalra for 3 claim
`elements
`Aside from claims 12 and 13, Realtime does not dispute that
`Vishwanath and Kalra together disclose these elements—only that
`there is no motivation to combine
`
`1. Data storage (claims 2 and 10)
`
`2. Retrieval based on channel throughput (claims 11-13)
`
`3. Retrieval based on CPU usage (claims 8 and 18)
`
`Paper 2 (Petition), pp. 56-65
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`157
`
`
`58
`
`
`
`Issue 1 (Ground 4): a POSITA Would Be Motivated to
`Combine Vishwanath and Kalra
`
`Vishwanath and Kalra both describe “adaptive” client-server systems
`that optimize compression to account for various conditions
`
`Vishwanath
`
`Kalra
`
`DISH1004, Fig. 2; DISH1006, Fig. 14; Paper 2 (Petition), pp. 54-65; Paper 23 (Reply), pp. 25-28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`158
`
`
`59
`
`
`
`Issue 1 (Ground 4): a POSITA Would Be Motivated to
`Combine Vishwanath and Kalra
`
`Realtime’s two excuses why a POSITA would not combine
`Vishwanath and Kalra are unsupported
`
`1. “Vishwanath and Kalra have different principles of operation”
`
`2. “The Petition does not adequately explain how a POSITA
`would design a combined Vishwanath-Kalra system”
`
`Paper 16 (Patent Owner Response), pp. 45-49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`159
`
`
`60
`
`
`
`Realtime’s First Argument Fails: Selecting Compression Algorithms at
`Different Times Does Not Make Vishwanath and Kalra Incompatible
`
`A POSITA would understand that Vishwanath could perform
`selection ahead of time (like Kalra) to take into account different
`devices / transmission capabilities
`
`Dr. Scott Acton
`
`DISH’s Technical
`Expert
`
`DISH1027, ¶ 71; Paper 23 (Reply), 25-28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`160
`
`
`61
`
`
`
`Realtime’s Second Argument Fails: DISH Shows How
`to Combine Vishwanath and Kalra
`
`A POSITA would have known to modify Vishwanath to use Kalra’s
`“adaptive stream server” to pre-store compressed data prior to a
`user’s request
`
`Vishwanath
`
`Kalra
`
`DISH1004, Fig. 2; DISH1006, Fig. 14; Paper 2 (Petition), pp. 54-65; Paper 23 (Reply), pp. 25-28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`161
`
`
`62
`
`
`
`Realtime’s Second Argument Fails: DISH Shows How to
`Combine Vishwanath and Kalra
`
`Vishwanath/Kalra perform a selection for compression (as taught by
`Vishwanath) and a selection for retrieval (as taught by Kalra)
`
`Initial Compression (Claim 1)
`Vishwanath
`
`Retrieval (e.g., Claim 8)
`Kalra
`
`Storage
`(Claim 2)
`Kalra
`
`DISH1006, Figs. 1, 2A; DISH1003, ¶¶ 167-174;
`Paper 2 (Petition), pp. 59-60; Paper 23 (Reply), pp. 25-28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`162
`
`
`63
`
`
`
`Realtime’s Argument Regarding Claims 12 and 13 Are Based
`on a Misreading of the Claims
`
`Realtime’s assertion that “claims 12-13 teach the selection of
`compression algorithms based on more than one throughput of a
`communication channel” is wrong
`Claims 12 and 13 only include retrieving steps
`
`12. The apparatus of claim 10,
`wherein the data compression system
`is further configured to: retrieve at least
`a portion of the at least stored portion
`of the at least compressed portion of
`the data block based upon the
`throughput of the communication
`channel…
`
`13. The apparatus of claim 12,
`wherein the controller is further
`configured to retrieve at least a portion
`of a third compressed data block that
`was compressed with one or more third
`compression algorithms …..
`
`DISH1001, 20:41-21:19; Paper 23 (Reply), p. 25-27; Paper 16 (Patent Owner Response), p. 49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`163
`
`
`64
`
`
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
