UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SLING TV L.L.C., SLING MEDIA, L.L.C.,
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C., DISH TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF KENNETH A. ZEGER, PH.D., IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
`A.
`Engagement ...................................................................................... 1
`B.
`Background and Qualifications ......................................................... 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II. Materials Considered................................................................................... 4
`
`III. Relevant Legal Standards ............................................................................ 6
`A.
`Burden of Proof ................................................................................. 6
`B.
`Claim Construction ........................................................................... 6
`C.
`Embodiments .................................................................................... 7
`D. Anticipation ...................................................................................... 8
`E.
`Obviousness ...................................................................................... 8
`
`IV. The ’535 Patent (Ex. 1001) ....................................................................... 10
`A. Overview of the ’535 Patent ............................................................ 10
`B.
`Claims of ’535 Patent ...................................................................... 13
`C.
`Prosecution of ’535 Patent............................................................... 14
`
`V.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art ........................................................... 15
`
`VI. Claim Construction ................................................................................... 16
`A.
`“data block” .................................................................................... 17
`B.
`“parameter” ..................................................................................... 17
`C.
`“asymmetric compressors” / “asymmetric data compression” ......... 19
`D.
`“access profile” ............................................................................... 20
`1. Patent Owner’s proposed construction is correct. ........................................ 21
`2. Petitioner’s proposed construction is incorrect. ............................................ 24
`3. The Board’s preliminary construction from IPR2018-01169 is incorrect. .... 26
`VII. Overview of Prior Art ............................................................................... 30
`A. Dvir (Ex. 1004) ............................................................................... 30
`B.
`Ishii (Ex. 1005) ............................................................................... 31
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`
`VIII. Summary of Grounds ................................................................................ 33
`
`IX. Ground 1: The Petition’s Dvir-Based Anticipation Theory Fails. .............. 35
`The Petition, by relying on multiple embodiments, fails to
`A.
`prove anticipation. ........................................................................... 35
`1. Dr. Acton’s relies on multiple embodiments of Dvir in his anticipation
`analysis ....................................................................................................... 35
`2. Dr. Acton’s paragraph 102 relies on “another embodiment” of Dvir in his
`anticipation analysis.................................................................................... 36
`3. Dr. Acton’s paragraph 99 relies on two different embodiments of Dvir in his
`anticipation analysis.................................................................................... 37
`4. Dr. Acton’s paragraph 116 relies on two different embodiments of Dvir in his
`anticipation analysis.................................................................................... 38
`5. The Petition fails to show that Dvir discloses all limitations arranged or
`combined in the same way as the claim. ...................................................... 38
`The Petition fails to show “determining a parameter or attribute
`of at least a portion of a data block having audio or video data” ...... 40
`1. The Petition fails to show that Dvir discloses a “data block” as required by
`the claim. .................................................................................................... 40
`2. The Petition fails to show that Dvir discloses “determining a parameter or
`attribute of at least a portion of a data block” as required by the claim. ....... 43
`The Petition fails to show “selecting an access profile from
`among a plurality of access profiles based upon the determined
`parameter or attribute.” ................................................................... 46
`1. Under the correct construction of “access profile,” the Petitioner’s
`anticipation theory fails............................................................................... 46
`2. The Petition offers no opinions, evidence, or argument under the Board’s
`preliminary construction of “access profile” from IPR2018-01169. ............. 48
`The Petition fails to show “one or more compressors using
`asymmetric data compression . . .” .................................................. 49
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`X. Ground 2: The Petition’s Dvir-Based Obviousness Theory Fails. .............. 53
`A. Dr. Acton’s obviousness reasoning fails because it incorrectly
`assumes that Dvir’s compressed video would be decompressed
`far more frequently than it was compressed. ................................... 53
`1. Remote receivers of Dvir’s compressed video would not decompress the
`video more frequently than it was compressed. ........................................... 55
`2. Only one end-user receives each of Dvir’s compressed video transmissions.
` ................................................................................................................... 56
`3. Dvir incorporates by reference a display monitor that cannot decode a
`received video signal more than once. ......................................................... 57
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`
`B.
`
`Dr. Acton also fails to show that “asymmetric” compression
`would be obvious. ........................................................................... 61
`
`B.
`
`XI. Ground 3: The Petition’s Dvir and Ishii Obviousness Theory Fails. .......... 63
`A. Ground 3 fails because Dvir does not anticipate or render
`obvious independent claim 1 of the ’535 patent. .............................. 63
`Ground 3 fails also because there is no motivation to combine
`Dvir and Ishii. ................................................................................. 63
`1. Dvir teaches data compression only for the purpose of transmitting through
`bandwidth limited channels......................................................................... 63
`2. Dvir does not teach storage of multimedia data. .......................................... 64
`3. Dvir assumes the multimedia arrives, gets compressed, and transmitted. ..... 66
`4.
`Ishii’s file system compression has nothing to do with Dvir’s teachings. ..... 66
`5.
`Ishii does not teach storage of audio or video data. ...................................... 67
`6.
`Ishii’s system adds computational complexity and storage .......................... 69
`7. Dvir and Ishii have different principles of operation. ................................... 71
`The Petition’s Ground 3 theory for claims 3, 4, and 11 fails for
`additional reasons. ........................................................................... 72
`
`C.
`
`XII. Conclusion ................................................................................................ 74
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`
`1010
`
`Exhibit No.1 Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 to Fallon (“the ’535 Patent”)
`1002
`Prosecution History of the ’535 Patent (“the Prosecution
`History”)
`Declaration of Dr. Scott Acton
`U.S. Patent No. 6,557,001 (“Dvir”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,675,789 (“Ishii”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,216,157 (“Vishwanath”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,867,610 to Fallon
`(“the ’610 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,195,024 to Fallon (“the ’024 Patent”)
`Realtime Data LLC v. Rackspace US, Inc. et al., Dkt. No. 183,
`Case No. 6-16-cv-00961 (E.D. Tex. June 29, 2016)
`Realtime Data LLC v. Actian Corporation et al., Dkt. No. 362,
`Case No. 6-15-cv-00463 (E.D. Tex. May 8, 2015)
`Infringement Contentions for U.S. Patent No.
`8,934,535 from Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV
`L.L.C. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ (D. Colo.)
`Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO v. Packeteer Inc., et al., No. 6:08-
`cv-00144 Docket No. 371, p. 59 (E.D. Tex. June 22, 2009)
`Held, G. Data Compression: Techniques and Applications,
`Hardware and Software Considerations, John Wiley & Sons,
`1983
`Fahie, John Jacob (1884). A History of Electric Telegraphy, to the
`Year 1837. E. & F.N. Spon.
`Mag, Lond Mechanics. “Mr. Bain’s Electric Printing Telegraph.”
`Journal of the Franklin Institute, of the State of Pennsylvania, for
`the Promotion of the Mechanic Arts; Devoted to Mechanical and
`Physical Science, Civil Engineering, the Arts and Manufactures,
`and the Recording of American and Other Patent Inventions
`(1828-1851) 8.1 (1844): 61.
`
`1 Exhibits 1001–1025 were submitted with the Petition and labeled “DISH1001” to
`“DISH1022.” Exhibits 2001–2009 were submitted with Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response. Exhibits 2010–2016 are submitted with Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`1024
`
`1025
`2001
`
`2002
`2003
`2004
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`2008
`
`2009
`2010
`2011
`2012
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`
`Huffman, D. A. (1952). A method for the construction of
`minimum-redundancy codes. Proceedings of the IRE, 40(9),
`1098-1101.
`Shannon, C. E. (1949). Communication theory of secrecy
`systems. Bell Labs Technical Journal, 28(4), 656-715.
`Tekalp, A. M. (1995). Digital video processing. Prentice Hall
`Press.
`Bovik, Alan C. Handbook of image and video processing.
`Academic press, 2009.
`Jim Taylor, DVD Demystified (1998)
`Zhang, Z. L., Wang, Y., Du, D. H. C., & Su, D. (2000). Video
`staging: A proxy-server-based approach to end-to-end video
`delivery over wide-area networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on
`networking, 8(4), 429-442.
`ISO/IEC 11172-2: 1993
`ISO/IEC 13818-2: 1995
`Gringeri et al., Traffic Shaping, Bandwidth Allocation, and
`Quality Assessment for MPEG Video Distribution over
`Broadband Networks, IEEE Network, (November/December
`1998)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,020,904 (“Clark”)
`Amended Complaint of June 6, 2017, in E.D. Tex. Case No. 17-
`cv-84
`Stipulated Motion in D. Colorado Case No. 17-cv-2097
`Proof of Service of Amended Complaint re: DISH Network LLC
`Proof of Service of Amended Complaint re: Sling TV LLC
`Proof of Service of Amended Complaint re: EchoStar
`Technologies LLC
`Proof of Service of Amended Complaint re: Sling Media LLC
`Defendants' Supplemental Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement
`Defendants’ Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to
`Answer Complaint
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions
`Expert Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger
`Transcript of Deposition of Scott Acton on May 10, 2019
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Sling, et al., Civil Action No.
`1:17-CV-02097-RBJ, Dkt. 135-1 (D. Colo. Nov. 7, 2018), Expert
`Declaration of Alan Bovik
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Sling, et al., Civil Action No.
`1:17-CV-02097-RBJ, Dkt. 151 (D. Colo. Jan. 11, 2019),
`Markman Order
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. US 2002/0144271 A1 for Appl. No.
`09/197,441 (“Behagen”)
`Transcript of Deposition of Scott Acton on May 10, 2019 in
`IPR2018-01331 on U.S. Patent No. 8,867,610.
`RFC 2435, RTP Payload Format for JPEG-compressed Video,
`October 1998
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`
`I, Kenneth A. Zeger, Ph.D., a resident of San Diego, California, declare as
`
`
`
`follows:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`A. Engagement
`
`I have been retained by Patent Owner Realtime Adaptive Streaming
`
`LLC (“Realtime” or “Patent Owner”) through Zunda LLC to provide my opinions
`
`with respect to their Response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review in IPR2018-
`
`01342 (“Petition” or “Pet.”) as to U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 (“’535 patent,” Exhibit
`
`1001). I have no interest in the outcome of this proceeding and my compensation is
`
`in no way contingent on my providing any particular opinions.
`
`
`
`As a part of this engagement, I have also been asked to provide my
`
`technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions regarding the Petition and the
`
`supporting declaration of Dr. Scott Acton (“Acton Declaration” or “Acton Decl.”
`
`Ex. 1003) with respect to the challenged claims of the ’535 patent.
`
`
`
`The statements made herein are based on my own knowledge and
`
`opinions.
`
`B.
`
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`I have studied, taught, and practiced electrical and computer
`
`engineering for thirty-nine years. I attended the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology (“MIT”) and earned a Bachelors (SB) and Masters (SM) of Science
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`Degrees in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1984. I earned a Master
`
`
`
`
`
`of Arts (MA) Degree in Mathematics in 1989 from the University of California,
`
`Santa Barbara. I also earned my Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from
`
`the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1990.
`
`
`
`I am currently a Full Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
`
`at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). I have held this position since
`
`1998, having been promoted from Associated Professor after two years at UCSD. I
`
`have been an active member of the UCSD Center for Wireless Communications for
`
`22 years. I teach courses full-time at UCSD in the fields of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering, and specifically in subfields including communications, information
`
`theory, and data compression at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Prior to my
`
`employment at UCSD, I taught and conducted research as a faculty member at the
`
`University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign for four years, and at the University of
`
`Hawaii for two years.
`
` My twenty-plus years of industry experience includes consulting work
`
`for the United States Department of Defense as well as for private companies such
`
`as Xerox, Nokia, MITRE, ADP, and Hewlett-Packard. The topics upon which I
`
`provide consulting expertise include data communications for wireless networks,
`
`digital communications, information theory, computer software, and mathematical
`
`analyses.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`I have authored 77 peer-reviewed journal articles, the majority of which
`
`
`
`
`
`are on the topic of compression or information theory. I have also authored over 110
`
`papers at various conferences and symposia over the past thirty years, such as the:
`
`IEEE International Conference on Communications; IEEE Radio and Wireless
`
`Symposium; Wireless Communications and Networking Conference; IEEE Global
`
`Telecommunications Conference; International Symposium on Network Coding;
`
`IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory; UCSD Conference on
`
`Wireless Communications; International Symposium on Information Theory and Its
`
`Applications; Conference on Advances in Communications and Control Systems;
`
`IEEE Communication Theory Workshop; Conference on Information Sciences and
`
`Systems; Allerton Conference on Communications, Control, and Computing;
`
`Information Theory and Its Applications Workshop; Asilomar Conference on
`
`Signals, Systems, and Computers. Roughly half of those papers relate to data
`
`compression. I also am co-inventor on a US patent disclosing a memory saving
`
`technique for image compression.
`
`
`
`I was elected a Fellow of the IEEE in 2000, an honor bestowed upon
`
`only a small percentage of IEEE members. I was awarded the National Science
`
`Foundation Presidential Young Investigator Award in 1991, which included
`
`$500,000 in research funding. I received this award one year after receiving my
`
`Ph.D.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`I have served as an Associate Editor for the IEEE Transactions on
`
`
`
`
`
`Information Theory and have been an elected member of the IEEE Information
`
`Theory Board of Governors for three, three-year terms. I organized and have been
`
`on the technical advisory committees of numerous workshops and symposia in the
`
`areas of communications and information theory. I regularly review submitted
`
`journal manuscripts, government funding requests, conference proposals, student
`
`theses, and textbook proposals. I also have given many lectures at conferences,
`
`universities, and companies on topics in communications and information theory.
`
`
`
`I have extensive experience in electronics hardware and computer
`
`software, from academic studies, work experience, and supervising students. I
`
`personally program computers on an almost daily basis and have fluency in many
`
`different computer languages.
`
` My curriculum vitae, attached to this declaration as Exhibit A, (“Zeger
`
`Curriculum Vitae”), lists my publication record in archival journals, international
`
`conferences, and workshops.
`
`II. Materials Considered
`
`I have been asked to provide a technical review, analysis, insights, and
`
`opinions. My technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions are based on my
`
`education, research, and experience, as well as my study of relevant materials.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the ’535 patent specification and
`
`
`
`
`
`claims. My understanding of the claims is based on the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`and/or broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as would be understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, unless the inventor has provided a special meaning
`
`for a term. Unless otherwise noted, my opinions set forth herein do not rest on a
`
`disagreement with Dr. Acton as to the meaning of any claim term or limitation.
`
`
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review, Patent Owner Preliminary Response, and the Board’s Decision to Institute
`
`in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`I have reviewed the Declaration of Dr. Scott Acton. I have also
`
`reviewed the Dvir and Ishii references submitted by Petitioner in this proceeding, as
`
`well as other references, and am familiar with those references. I have also reviewed
`
`the exhibits submitted by Petitioner and the exhibits cited in this declaration. In
`
`addition, I have reviewed Dr. Acton’s deposition testimony in this proceeding
`
`(“Acton Deposition” or “Acton Dep.,” Ex. 2011). I have also reviewed the
`
`prosecution history of the ’535 patent.
`
` This declaration represents only opinions I have formed to date. I may
`
`consider additional documents as they become available or other documents that are
`
`necessary to form my opinions. I reserve the right to revise, supplement, or amend
`
`my opinions based on new information and on my continuing analysis.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`
`III. Relevant Legal Standards
`
`I am not an attorney. I offer no opinions on the law. But counsel has
`
`informed me of the following legal standards relevant to my analysis here. I have
`
`applied these standards in arriving at my conclusions.
`
`A. Burden of Proof
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review the petitioner has the burden
`
`of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`I understand that in this inter partes review the Board applies a broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation (BRI) claim construction standard to claims in an
`
`unexpired patent. I understand that the PTO set forth a new final rule published
`
`October 11, 2018 changing the claim construction standard in IPRs from BRI to
`
`plain and ordinary meaning referred to as the Phillips standard. But I understand that
`
`this does not apply to this proceeding because the new “rule is effective on
`
`November 13, 2018 and applies to all IPR, PGR, and CBM petitions filed on or after
`
`the effective date.” Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting
`
`Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg.
`
`51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42). This Petition was served
`
`on July 3, 2018.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`I understand that the broadest reasonable interpretation standard does
`
`
`
`
`
`not mean the broadest possible interpretation. I understand that the Board must
`
`always consider the claims in light of the specification and teachings in the patent
`
`and that a proper claim construction analysis corresponds with how the inventor
`
`describes his invention in the specification. I further understand that a proper claim
`
`construction should also take into account the patent’s prosecution history.
`
`
`
`I understand that there is a heavy presumption that claim terms carry
`
`their full ordinary and customary meaning. I further understand that there are only
`
`two exceptions to this general rule: (1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts
`
`as his own lexicographer, or (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim
`
`term either in the specification or during prosecution.
`
`
`
`I understand that the Board does not construe claim terms unnecessary
`
`to resolving the controversy.
`
`C. Embodiments
`
`I understand that references to a particular “embodiment” in the written
`
`description are used to introduce a particular implementation or method of carrying
`
`out the invention. For example, I understand that International Patent Classification
`
`(Version 2009) defines an “embodiment” as “a specific, disclosed example of how
`
`an inventive concept, that is more generally stated elsewhere in the disclosure, can
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`be put into practice.” I further understand that not all various embodiments in a
`
`
`
`
`
`patent may be recited in the claims.
`
`D. Anticipation
`
`I understand that for a prior art reference to serve as an anticipatory
`
`reference, it must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly
`
`or inherently. I understand that anticipation requires that every element and
`
`limitation of the claim was previously described in a single prior art reference, either
`
`expressly or inherently, so as to place a person of ordinary skill in possession of the
`
`invention.
`
`
`
`I further understand that unless a reference discloses within the four
`
`corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the
`
`limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot
`
`be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102. I further understand that prior art references that are
`
`ambiguous as to the presence or description of a particular claim element cannot
`
`anticipate a claim.
`
`E. Obviousness
`
`I understand that a claim of a patent may not be novel even though the
`
`invention is not identically disclosed or described in the prior art so long as the
`
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having
`
`
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the relevant subject matter at the time the invention was
`
`made.
`
`
`
`I understand that, to demonstrate obviousness, it is not sufficient for a
`
`petition to merely show that all of the elements of the claims at issue are found in
`
`separate prior art references or even scattered across different embodiments and
`
`teachings of a single reference. The petition must thus go further, to explain how a
`
`person of ordinary skill would combine specific prior art references or teachings,
`
`which combinations of elements in specific references would yield a predictable
`
`result, and how any specific combination would operate or read on the claims.
`
`Similarly, it is not sufficient to allege that the prior art could be combined, but rather,
`
`the petition must show why and how a person of ordinary skill would have combined
`
`them.
`
`
`
`I understand that, to demonstrate obviousness, a petition must
`
`accurately identify and analyze the differences between the claimed invention and
`
`the prior art.
`
`
`
`I understand that obviousness cannot be shown by conclusory
`
`statements, and that the petition must provide articulated reasoning with some
`
`rational underpinning to support its conclusion of obviousness.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`
`IV. The ’535 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`A. Overview of the ’535 Patent
` The ’535 patent claims priority to a provisional application filed on
`
`February 13, 2001. The ’535 patent addresses specific problems in the field of
`
`compressing, storing, and transmitting digital data. Those problems include: the
`
`“compromise between efficient data storage, access speed, and addressable data
`
`space”; “file systems [that] are not able to randomly access compressed data in an
`
`efficient manner”; “substantial disk fragmentation and slower access times”;
`
`optimizing the “algorithmic efficiency” of the compressors being used; and
`
`“Competing requirements of data access bandwidth, data reliability/redundancy, and
`
`efficiency of storage space.” ’535 patent at 5:5–10; 6:31–7:45.
`
` The ’535 patent solved these technological problems and others with a
`
`novel technological solution in data compression using a combination of (1)
`
`asymmetric compressors, (2) two or more compressors, and (3) selecting
`
`compressors based on a parameter such as throughput of a communication channel,
`
`and (4) access profiles. The ’535 patent explains that “access profiles comprise
`
`information that enables the controller to select a suitable compression algorithm
`
`that provides a desired balance between execution speed (rate of compression) and
`
`efficiency (compression ratio).” Id. at 8:8–13. It describes that “the overall
`
`throughput (bandwidth) . . . is one factor considered by the controller 11 in deciding
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`whether to use an asymmetrical or symmetrical compression.” Id. at 11:25-29. The
`
`
`
`
`
`patent also recognized that using an asymmetrical algorithm may “provide an
`
`increase in the overall system performance” (id. at 12:14-20), where an
`
`“asymmetrical” algorithm is defined to be a compression algorithm “in which the
`
`execution time for the compression and decompression routines differ significantly.”
`
`Id. at 9:63-66.
`
` More generally, the ’535 patent relates to “data compression and
`
`decompression” and to “compressing and decompressing data based on an actual or
`
`expected throughput (bandwidth) of a system that employs data compression.” ’535
`
`patent at Abstract. The ’535 patent also relates to “the subsequent storage, retrieval,
`
`and management of information in data storage devices utilizing either compression
`
`and/or accelerated data storage and retrieval bandwidth.” Id. at 1:26–29.
`
` The ʼ535 patent explains that data compression algorithms can have
`
`varied performance characteristics. Id. at 1:32–35. For example, with a typical
`
`dictionary-based compression algorithm, the size of the dictionary can affect the
`
`performance of the algorithm. Id. at 1:35–38. A large dictionary may yield very good
`
`compression ratios but may make the algorithm take a long time to execute.
`
` On the other hand, a smaller dictionary may yield a faster compression
`
`time but at the expense of a lower compression ratio. Id. at 1:38–44. Thus, the patent
`
`recognizes one challenge in employing data compression is selecting the appropriate
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`algorithm from a variety of algorithms for a given application or system. The patent
`
`
`
`
`
`also teaches that the desired balance between speed and efficiency is an important
`
`factor in determining which algorithm to select for data compression. The inventors
`
`of the ’535 patent recognized that a system that provides dynamic modification of
`
`compression system parameters to provide an optimal balance between speed and
`
`compression ratio is highly desirable. Id. at 1:56–60.
`
` The ʼ535 patent describes as one example a system for compressing and
`
`decompressing based on the actual or expected throughput (bandwidth) of a system
`
`employing data compression and a technique of optimizing based upon planned,
`
`expected, predicted, or actual usage. Id. at 7:51–55. A bandwidth sensitive data
`
`compression routine may be selected based on access profiles that enable the
`
`controller to determine a compression routine associated with a data type of the data
`
`to be compressed. Id. at 8:4–8. The access profiles comprise information that enables
`
`the controller to select a suitable compression algorithm that provides the desired
`
`balance between speed and compression ratio. Id. at 8:8–13.
`
` These access profiles may take into account the overall throughput of a
`
`system as one factor in deciding whether to use an asymmetric or symmetric
`
`algorithm. Id. at 11:25–29. An asymmetric algorithm is one in which the execution
`
`time for the compression and decompression routines differ significantly. Id. at
`
`9:64–66. Another factor the access profile may track is the type of data to be
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`processed. Id. at 11:29–31. For example, different data types may be associated with
`
`
`
`
`
`different compression algorithms. Id. at 11:35–40.
`
` Through its teachings, the ’535 patent describes a system that selects
`
`an appropriate compression algorithm to optimize system throughput based on the
`
`data being compressed. Id. at 14:27–39.
`
`B. Claims of ’535 Patent
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’535 patent recites:
`
`
`
`1. A method, comprising:
`
`[a]
`
`determining a parameter or attribute of at least a portion of a data block
`
`having audio or video data;
`
`[b]
`
`selecting an access profile from among a plurality of access profiles
`
`based upon the determined parameter or attribute; and
`
`[c]
`
`compressing the at least the portion of the data block with one or more
`
`compressors using asymmetric data compression and information from
`
`the selected access profile to create one or more compressed data
`
`blocks, the information being indicative of the one or more compressors
`
`to apply to the at least the portion of the data block.
`
` Claims 2–6 and 8–12 depend directly or indirectly from independent
`
`claim 1. The only other challenged claim is independent claim 14. Claim 14 recites:
`
`14. A method, comprising:
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`determining a parameter or attribute of at least a portion of a data block;
`
`
`
`selecting an access profile from among a plurality of access profiles
`
`based upon the determined parameter or attribute; and
`
`[a]
`
`[b]
`
`[c]
`
`compressing the at least the portion of the data block with one or more
`
`compressors utilizing information from the selected access profile to
`
`create one or more compressed data blocks, the information being
`
`indicative of the one or more compressors to apply to the at least the
`
`portion of the data block,
`
`[d] wherein the one or more compressors utilize at least one slow compress
`
`encoder and at least one fast decompress decoder, and
`
`[e] wherein compressing the at least the portion of the