UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLING TV, L.L.C., et al.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 1 
`A.  “Access Profile” ........................................................................................ 1 
`1. 
`Realtime’s proposed construction is incorrect ................................ 1 
`2.  DISH’s proposed construction is correct ........................................ 3 
`3.  DISH disagrees with the “access profile” construction adopted in
`IPR2018-01169 ............................................................................... 4 
`B.  “Asymmetric” ........................................................................................... 6 
`III.  DVIR DISCLOSES AND RENDERS OBVIOUS CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS 1-2, 9-10, AND 14 (GROUNDS 1 AND 2) .................................... 7 
`A.  Dvir Properly Anticipates (Ground 1) ...................................................... 7 
`B.  Dvir Discloses and Renders Obvious “Data Block” .............................. 11 
`C.  Dvir Discloses and Renders Obvious “Determining a Parameter or
`Attribute of at Least a Portion of a Data Block” .................................... 14 
`D.  Dvir Discloses and Renders Obvious “Access Profiles” ........................ 15 
`1.  Dvir discloses and renders obvious “access profiles” under both
`parties’ constructions ..................................................................... 15 
`2.  Dvir renders obvious “access profiles” under the IPR2018-01169
`preliminary construction ............................................................... 17 
`E.  Dvir Discloses and Renders Obvious “Compressors Using Asymmetric
`Data Compression” ................................................................................. 18 
`1.  MPEG compression is “asymmetric” under either party’s
`proposed construction ................................................................... 18 
`2.  Dvir renders “compressors using asymmetric data compression”
`obvious .......................................................................................... 19 
`IV.  THE DVIR AND ISHII COMBINATION RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS
`3-6, 8, AND 11-12 (GROUND 3) ................................................................. 22 
`A.  A POSITA Would Be Motivated to Combine Dvir and Ishii ................ 22 
`B.  A POSITA Would Combine Dvir and Ishii Despite Any Added
`Complexity .............................................................................................. 24 
`C.  Dvir and Ishii Do Not Have Different Principles of Operation .............. 25 
`D.  Realtime’s Arguments Regarding Claims 3, 4, and 11 Are Inapposite . 27 
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`E.  The Combination of Dvir and Ishii Renders Obvious Claims 3-6, 8, 11-
`12 Under the IPR2018-01169 Preliminary Construction of “Access
`Profile” .................................................................................................... 27 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 29
`
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`PAGES
`
`Akamai Tech v. Limelight Networks, Inc., No. 2016-01011, 2017 WL 4864813
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2017) ...................................................................................... 2
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............... 7, 10
`Ex Parte Kowalski, No. 2014-001764, 2016 WL 738080 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22,
`2016) .................................................................................................................... 4
`Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 824 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................. 3
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................ 22
`Net MoneyIN v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`DISH1001
`DISH1002
`
`DISH1003
`DISH1004
`DISH1005
`DISH1006
`DISH1007
`
`DISH1008
`DISH1009
`
`DISH1010
`
`DISH1011
`
`DISH1012
`
`DISH1013
`
`DISH1014
`
`DISH1015
`
`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 to Fallon (“the ’535 Patent”)
`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)
`Patent Owner’s 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
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`of American and Other Patent Inventions (1828-1851) 8.1
`(1844): 61
`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”)
`Executed Assignment of U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Realtime Adaptive
`Streaming LLC v. EchoStar Technologies, L.L.C. et al., Case
`No. 6:17-cv-00567 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2017)
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Realtime Adaptive
`Streaming LLC v. Sling TV L.L.C. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-
`02097 (D. Col. Oct. 10, 2017)
`Transcript of Deposition of Kenneth A. Zeger on July 31,
`2019
`Transcript of Deposition of Kenneth A. Zeger on July 31,
`2019 in IPR2018-01331 on U.S. Patent No. 8,867,610
`
`v
`
`DISH1016
`
`DISH1017
`
`DISH1018
`
`DISH1019
`
`DISH1020
`DISH1021
`
`DISH1022
`DISH1023
`DISH1024
`
`DISH1025
`DISH1026
`DISH2017
`
`DISH1028
`
`DISH1029
`
`DISH1030
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`
`DISH1031
`DISH1032
`
`DISH1033
`
`DISH1034
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Scott Acton
`ISO/IEC 13818-2 Generic Coding of Moving Pictures and
`Associated Audio, Recommendation H.262, March 25, 1994
`Haskell, Barry G., et al., Digital Video: an Introduction to
`MPEG-2 (2002)
`Aramvith, Supavadee, et al., MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 Video
`Standards, Academic Press (1999)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Realtime fails to rebut DISH’s prima facie showing of unpatentability.
`
`Realtime’s positions find no support in the law, the proposed claim constructions,
`
`or the record evidence. For the reasons detailed herein, DISH respectfully requests
`
`that the Board hold the challenged claims unpatentable.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A. “Access Profile”
`1. Realtime’s proposed construction is incorrect
`First, Realtime’s proposed construction is incorrect because it is merely
`
`aspirational—it describes the advantages of using an “access profile,” but does not
`
`define what an “access profile” is. DISH1031-¶¶42-49. Realtime’s construction
`
`recites “a desired balance between execution speed (rate of compression) and
`
`efficiency (compression ratio),” but does not inform a POSITA what exactly a
`
`“desired balance” is or who or what is doing the “desir[ing].” Dr. Zeger opined
`
`that “the desiring would be in the eyes of a practitioner of the ’535 patent” and
`
`“based on the criteria of the person that chooses to implement the ’535 patent.”
`
`DISH1029-33:22-34:8. Thus, Realtime’s construction captures the goal of a
`
`POSITA but is not informative as to what an “access profile” is.
`
`Second, Realtime wrongly asserts that its proposed construction is supported
`
`by the claims and specification. POR-13-14; REALTIME2010-¶60. Realtime
`
`alleges that the claims describe “selecting a suitable asymmetric data compression
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`encoder.” POR-13-14; REALTIME2010-¶60. But nowhere do the claims require
`
`selecting a “suitable” compression algorithm, let alone one that meets a “desired
`
`balance between execution speed . . . and efficiency.” Realtime is improperly
`
`reading this criteria for selection into the claims, which is improper under the BRI
`
`standard. Akamai Tech v. Limelight Networks, Inc., No. 2016-01011, 2017 WL
`
`4864813, at *4 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2017) (“limitations are not to be read into the
`
`claims from the specification.”) (internal citation omitted). Moreover, the claims
`
`elsewhere explicitly recite criteria for selection, e.g., “based upon the determined
`
`parameter or attribute,” making Realtime’s attempt to add criteria from the
`
`specification into the claims all the more suspect. DISH1001-20:32-24.
`
`Third, while Realtime argues that its proposed construction would not
`
`exclude any embodiments of the ’535 patent, none of Realtime’s examples
`
`mention a desired balance between compression speed and efficiency. POR-13-16;
`
`REALTIME2010-¶¶59-63. Instead, Realtime’s examples support DISH’s
`
`construction. Indeed, the ’535 patent explains in connection with the table at
`
`column 11 that the “profiles may comprise a map that associates different data
`
`types . . . with preferred one(s) of the compression algorithms.” DISH1001-11:35-
`
`38 (emphasis added); DISH1029-41:12-42:6. Likewise, the table at column 12 of
`
`the ’535 patent describes “access profiles” that match different types of data to “the
`
`type of compression algorithm that would provide optimum throughput.”
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`DISH1001-12:47-67; DISH1029-40:21-41:8. Moreover, the ’535 patent elsewhere
`
`considers compression algorithm selection based on considerations other than
`
`speed and compression ratio such as accuracy. DISH1001-4:28-44 (discussing
`
`differences between accurate lossless compression and “noisy” lossy compression.)
`
`Thus, Realtime’s construction excludes embodiments and narrows the term beyond
`
`its broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`2. DISH’s proposed construction is correct
` “Access profile” should be construed to mean “information that enables a
`
`controller to determine a compression routine that is associated with a data type of
`
`the data to be compressed” as discussed in the Petition. Petition-19-20. Realtime
`
`improperly accuses DISH of importing limitations from the specification without a
`
`“clear and unmistakable disclaimer of claim scope,” POR-16; REALTIME2010-
`
`¶¶64-67, since disclaimer is not required when a term has no plain meaning.
`
`Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 824 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And the
`
`parties agree that there is no plain meaning for the term “access profile.” See
`
`POR-12-15; DISH1029-31:21-32:9 (“the word ‘access profile’ is not a typical
`
`terminology that a person of skill in the art would use outside of the context of this
`
`’535 patent.”).
`
`Realtime’s complaint that DISH’s “access profile” construction is overly
`
`narrow because of the phrase “data type” is inapt. Indeed, Realtime acknowledges
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`that the ’535 patent uses “‘data type’ to describe ‘access profile.’” POR-16.
`
`Realtime attempts to hedge by qualifying that the ’535 patent does so in a
`
`“preferred embodiment.” Id. Yet, Realtime does not identify any embodiments
`
`where “access profiles” do not link “data type” to compression algorithms or even
`
`describe how such an “access profile” could operate.
`
`Realtime further argues that DISH’s proposed construction is incorrect
`
`because it describes the function of the “access profiles” rather than what they are.
`
`POR-17-18; REALTIME2010-¶68. But DISH’s proposed construction is clear
`
`that “access profiles” are “information” (consistent with Realtime’s construction)
`
`and defines them concretely with the same precision used by the ’535 patent.
`
`DISH1001-12:47-67.
`
`3.
`
`DISH disagrees with the “access profile” construction
`adopted in IPR2018-01169
`Respectfully, the Board’s preliminary construction—“information regarding
`
`the number or frequency of reads or writes”—in IPR2018-01169 is incorrect.
`
`IPR2018-01169, Paper 20 (Institution Decision), 11-12.
`
`First, the IPR2018-01169 preliminary construction is incorrect because it
`
`excludes disclosed embodiments. Ex Parte Kowalski, No. 2014-001764, 2016 WL
`
`738080, at *4 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2016) (“A claim interpretation that excludes a
`
`preferred embodiment from the scope of the claim is rarely, if ever, correct.”)
`
`(internal citation omitted). None of the embodiments show that “access profile”
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`has “information regarding the number or frequency of reads or writes”—only that
`
`the “access profile” serves to link data types with compression algorithms:
`
`“information regarding predetermined access profiles of different
`data sets, which enables the controller 11 to select a suitable
`compression algorithm based on the data type. For instance, the data
`profiles may comprise a map that associates different data types
`(based on, e.g., a file extension) with preferred one(s) of the
`compression algorithms 13.”
`
` DISH1001-11:31-38 (emphasis added).
`
`The tables at columns 11 and 12 of the ’535 patent—on which the IPR2018-
`
`01169 preliminary construction depends—do not show that the “access profiles”
`
`literally are “information regarding the number or frequency of reads or writes.”
`
`The descriptions in the second row of the table below merely describe how the
`
`’535 patent assigns the “access profile” to different data types based on
`
`predetermined inferences about the particular type of data. DISH1031-¶¶50-55.
`
`DISH1001-11:41-47. The controller does not care about the reads or writes of
`
`specific data. It just cares whether the data was assigned “Access Profile 1,”
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`“Access Profile 2,” or “Access Profile 3.” This is because the “access profiles” are
`
`information that enable a controller to map a compression routine for data based on
`
`its data type. DISH1001-11:31-38; DISH1031-¶¶50-55.
`
`B. “Asymmetric”
`Realtime’s proposed construction differs from DISH’s in only one
`
`meaningful way—that the difference between the compression and decompression
`
`times must differ “significantly.”1 But Realtime’s addition of “significantly” is
`
`unhelpful. Indeed, Realtime’s expert admits that the patent fails to provide any
`
`guidance as to how a POSITA would determine whether a particular algorithm has
`
`compression and decompression routines whose execution times differ
`
`“significantly,” nor does he articulate any standard for making that determination.
`
`DISH1030-35:16-23; see also POR-37-39. Rather, Realtime uses this subjective
`
`term of degree seeking to avoid anticipation by concluding that compression
`
`algorithms are, or are not, “asymmetric” as it suits Realtime’s purposes.
`
`Realtime’s proposed construction should, therefore, be rejected.
`
`
`
`1 Realtime does not identify any meaningful difference between “execution time”
`
`(in its construction) and “time” (in DISH’s construction). See DISH1030-27:23-
`
`29:4.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`III. DVIR DISCLOSES AND RENDERS OBVIOUS CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS 1-2, 9-10, AND 14 (GROUNDS 1 AND 2)
`A. Dvir Properly Anticipates (Ground 1)
`DISH does not rely on different embodiments of Dvir to show anticipation
`
`as Realtime contends. POR-24-28; REALTIME2010-¶¶88-101. “A prior art
`
`reference will anticipate if it disclose[s] each and every element of the 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).
`
`As DISH’s petition demonstrates, Dvir discloses each and every claim
`
`element arranged as in the challenged claims. Petition-27-40. For instance, Dvir
`
`determines a parameter of the data, selects a suitable profile, and compresses the
`
`data based on the selected profile. See, e.g., Petition-27-35; DISH1003-¶¶86-117.
`
`DISH’s petition further demonstrates how each of these steps satisfy the claimed
`
`method steps just as arranged in the claims. Id. There is no mixing and matching
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`disparate teachings from different embodiments as Realtime alleges. Id. 2 Indeed,
`
`Realtime fails to i) identify distinct embodiments in Dvir, ii) explain how those
`
`embodiments are different, or iii) map DISH’s reliance on those embodiments to
`
`the challenged claims.3 Nor can it.
`
` Dvir discloses a single system for multimedia data compression and
`
`transmission that includes every claim element arranged in the same way as the
`
`claims. DISH1031-¶¶7-12. Dvir explains that “FIG. 1A is a schematic block
`
`diagram illustrating an exemplary system according to the present invention, while
`
`FIG. 1B is a flowchart of an exemplary method according to the present
`
`invention,” in other words, a method performed by the system of Figure 1A.
`
`DISH1004-4:38-42. And Figure 2 shows “an exemplary wireless monitor, for
`
`
`
`2 Net MoneyIN v. Verisign, Inc. is inapposite because the anticipation theory in that
`
`case relied on “two mutually exclusive payment models.” 545 F.3d 1359, 1363 n.1
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008). Even if Realtime were correct that Dvir discloses multiple
`
`embodiments, Realtime does not allege (and there is no evidence to support) these
`
`embodiments are different or that DISH relied on different embodiments. See
`
`DISH1031-¶¶7-18.
`
`3 Realtime’s expert could not identify how many embodiments are allegedly
`
`disclosed by Dvir and he did not analyze whether any alleged embodiments are
`
`compatible with one another. DISH1029-80:21-82:24.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`displaying the multimedia data from the computer” system of Figure 1A.
`
`DISH1004-7:1-6; DISH1031-¶¶9-12.
`
`The only disclosures in Dvir that could be remotely considered “alternative
`
`embodiments” are Figures 3A-C, which depict variations on hardware
`
`“configurations of [the] wireless monitor” of Figure 2 “and [the] main computer”
`
`system of Figure 1A. DISH1004-7:60-64; DISH1031-¶¶9-12. Figures 3A-C,
`
`however, each use the data compression and transmission system described in
`
`Figures 1A, 1B, and 2. Id. The only differences between these systems is the
`
`physical location of components, which has no bearing on anticipation because the
`
`challenged claims are method claims and agnostic to physical location of
`
`components. DISH1004-8:1-4, 8:38-42; 8:56-59; DISH1031-¶¶9-12.
`
`More importantly, Realtime fails to show that DISH actually relied on
`
`different embodiments. Realtime criticizes paragraph 102 of Dr. Acton’s
`
`declaration, citing to 3:9-21 and claim 11 of Dvir found at 10:12-38. POR-26. But
`
`the language of these two passages is nearly identical and merely explains that
`
`Dvir uses “compression profiles” to select a compression algorithm “suitable for a
`
`particular type of data.” DISH1031-¶¶13-18. Dr. Acton relies on other disclosures
`
`in Dvir teaching the same thing, including those describing Figures 1A and 1B,
`
`which Realtime ignores. Id. Moreover, Realtime fails to show any mixing and
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`matching of disclosures from these two sections. If anything, these additional
`
`citations to Dvir simply confirm Dvir’s other disclosures.
`
`Realtime’s criticism of paragraphs 99 and 116 of Dr. Acton’s declaration is
`
`equally superficial. Realtime argues that Dr. Acton’s citation to two paragraphs
`
`found in the “Summary of the Invention” section relies on two embodiments
`
`because the words “another embodiment” precede the second paragraph. POR-26-
`
`27. The only difference between the two paragraphs, however, is the order in
`
`which certain steps are performed: in the first paragraph Dvir creates profiles
`
`before determining a characteristic of data, while in the second paragraph Dvir
`
`performs these steps in reverse order. DISH1004-2:64-3:21; DISH1031-¶¶13-18.
`
`This variation does not result in a different embodiment and has no bearing on
`
`anticipation of the challenged claims. And here too, Realtime ignores several other
`
`citations relating to Figures 1A and 1B showing evidence of “compression
`
`profiles.” Nor does Realtime show how Dr. Acton combines teachings from these
`
`two alleged “embodiments” to satisfy the claim elements. POR-26-27;
`
`REALTIME2010-¶¶95-98.4
`
`
`
`4 Realtime’s arguments are belied by its failure to consider whether a POSITA
`
`reading Dvir “would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or combination.”
`
`Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1341. DISH1031-¶¶7-12.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`That Dvir uses the words “embodiments” is irrelevant. In IPR2018-01227,
`
`the Board rejected Realtime’s same argument, noting that the prior art’s reference
`
`to “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.”
`
`IPR2018-01227, Paper 15 (Institution Decision), 21. The Board further concluded
`
`that “the primary disclosures cited are not separate or distinct from the broadest
`
`disclosure” of the prior art, and that the mere “fact that Petitioner cites to other
`
`potential embodiments that are not needed to make its showing does not materially
`
`undermine the required showing.” Id. Here, DISH relies on Dvir’s single
`
`multimedia and compression system to prove anticipation. DISH1004-4:47-6:67;
`
`Petition-27-40; DISH1003-¶¶86-152.
`
`B. Dvir Discloses and Renders Obvious “Data Block”
`The crux of Realtime’s argument—that Dvir does not disclose a “data
`
`block” because Dvir’s “sample” could include “8x8 pixel” blocks from distant
`
`locations—is wrong and contrary to the parties’ agreed-upon construction. POR-
`
`29-34; REALTIME2010-¶¶102-116; DISH1031-¶¶19-35.
`
`Realtime’s argument flouts the agreed-upon construction of “data block”—
`
`“a single unit of data, which may range in size from individual bits through
`
`complete files or collection of multiple files.” Realtime rewrites its construction to
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`further limit “data block” to proximately-located data having “common
`
`characteristics or functionality”—a requirement found nowhere in its construction.
`
`POR-30-31; REALTIME2009-¶¶106, 108; DISH1029-64:24-66:10.5
`
`Rather, the agreed-upon construction is clear that a “data block” is
`
`unbounded in size and includes “files” or even a “collection of multiple files.”
`
`Thus, Realtime’s assertion that “[t]wo 8x8 blocks might not even be in the same
`
`frame of video” is misplaced. POR-30. Moreover, a POSITA would have
`
`understood that video data files, for example, would include numerous 8x8 pixel
`
`blocks, many of which are not contiguous or proximate one to another.
`
`DISH1031-¶¶19-35. Similarly, a POSITA would understand that files or a
`
`“collection of multiple files” can have different “characteristics” or
`
`“functionalities.” Id.
`
`Moreover, Dvir discloses a “data block” even under Realtime’s incorrect
`
`interpretation. Dvir analyzes video data to determine its data type by sampling
`
`“groups of rasters,” where each group can be a “block of 8x8 pixels.” DISH1004-
`
`5:31-51; Petition-27-28; DISH1003-¶¶87-90; DISH1031-¶¶27-33. Thus, Dvir
`
`
`
`5 Dr. Zeger’s testimony confirms Realtime’s attempt to evade its agreed
`
`construction, by now asserting that a “file” may or may not be a “single unit of
`
`data” because “[i]t depends on the circumstances.” DISH1029-59:18-20, 59:21-
`
`62:15.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`samples pixel blocks from a unit of data having common characteristics, e.g., a
`
`DVD movie, which is a file and thus a “data block.” Id.
`
`Realtime’s argument—that Dvir’s “sample” includes 8x8 pixel blocks from
`
`distant locations—is purely speculative. POR-30-31 (suggesting multiple 8x8
`
`blocks of pixels “might not even be in the same frame of video.”). But more than
`
`that, Realtime ignores that Dvir analyzes the “sample” to determine “a number of
`
`unique colors in the screen” 6 or “a level of motion in the screen between one frame
`
`and the next”—two examples where Dvir analyzes “samples” on the same frame or
`
`adjacent frames. DISH1004-4:36-42; DISH1031-¶¶27-33. A frame or adjacent
`
`frames exist within the same “file.” DISH1031-¶¶27-33; DISH1029-70:12-72:10;
`
`74:6-75:2. Moreover, as mentioned above, Dvir’s example shows the frame and
`
`adjacent frames are in the same “DVD movie.” DISH1004-5:45-51; DISH1031-
`
`¶¶27-33. Realtime’s expert further admits that a “frame” “could be” a “data
`
`block.” DISH1029-58:10-19, 75:2-7. And tellingly, he has “no opinion about”
`
`whether “a frame of pixels in the context of Dvir would not be a data block.” Id.-
`
`75:11-17.
`
`It would at least be obvious to determine a characteristic of a “data block”
`
`under Realtime’s tortured interpretation. It makes no sense for Dvir to analyze 8x8
`
`
`
`6 Dvir clarifies that “screen” in this context is a “frame.” DISH1004-45-46;
`
`DISH1031-¶29.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`pixel blocks from a series of disparate, unrelated data to select a suitable
`
`compression algorithm. DISH1031-¶¶34-35. A POSITA would understand that a
`
`sample of groups of pixels from a single frame or related frames would enable
`
`Dvir’s system to determine the characteristics of the multimedia (e.g., whether it is
`
`text or a DVD movie), in a way that selecting groups of pixels from “distant
`
`locations” would not. Id. Selecting “samples” of completely unrelated data does
`
`nothing to enable the selection of an optimal compression algorithm. Id.
`
`C. Dvir Discloses and Renders Obvious “Determining a Parameter or
`Attribute of at Least a Portion of a Data Block”
`Realtime does not dispute that Dvir’s characteristics—number of colors,
`
`
`
`presence of static dark thin rows of pixels, presence of large static blocks, and
`
`levels of motion between frames (DISH1004-5:36-41)—are parameters or
`
`attributes. POR-33. Rather, Realtime repeats the same incorrect argument
`
`regarding “data block” to further allege that Dvir does not satisfy “determining a
`
`parameter or attribute of at least a portion a data block.” POR-32-34;
`
`REALTIME2010-¶¶110-116. See Section II.B.
`
`
`
`Realtime’s alternative argument—that DISH cannot identify something
`
`other than a “sample” as the claimed “data block”—disregards the claim language.
`
`POR-33; REALTIME2010-¶¶113-116. The claims require the determined
`
`parameter or attribute be “of at least a portion of” the “data block.” Thus, Dvir
`
`satisfies the claims whether the “sample” is the “data block” or a portion of the
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`“data block,” such as where the “data block” is a frame, adjacent frames, or entire
`
`video. Section III.B; DISH1029-58:20-59:2, 59:18-20; REALTIME2011-28:4-
`
`36:6; DISH1031-¶¶36-37.
`
`D. Dvir Discloses and Renders Obvious “Access Profiles”
`1. Dvir discloses and renders obvious “access profiles” under
`both parties’ constructions
`Dvir’s “profile” is an “access profile” under Realtime’s construction.7
`
`Realtime concedes on the first part of its construction—“information that enables
`
`the controller to select a suitable compression algorithm”—for good reason. Dvir
`
`discloses that its “profiles” enable selection of the “optimal compression” method
`
`for each particular data type. POR-34-36; DISH1004-3:14-18; see also id.-5:3-6
`
`(“plurality of compression profiles, each of which is suitable for a particular type
`
`of display data ...”); Petition-30-32; DISH1003-¶¶96-104.
`
`Thus, Realtime simply claims that Dvir’s compression does not “provide[] a
`
`desired balance between execution speed (rate of compression) and efficiency
`
`(compression ratio).” POR-34-36. Realtime is incorrect. For example, a POSITA
`
`would understand that MPEG compression (disclosed by Dvir) balances the speed
`
`and efficiency of video compression by adjusting motion estimation amounts.
`
`
`
`7 Realtime does not contest that Dvir satisfies the “access profile” limitation under
`
`DISH’s proposed construction. See POR-34-37.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP4
`IPR2018-01342
`DISH1031-¶¶3