`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION AND
`POLYCOM, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01413
`Patent 9,769,477
` ____________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,769,477
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
`
`II. SUMMARY OF THE ’477 PATENT ............................................................... 2
`
`A. THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF THE ’477 PATENT ............................................. 2
`
`B. SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’477 PATENT ..................... 6
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ....................................... 7
`
`A. REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST AND RELATED MATTERS .................................... 7
`
`C. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL UNDER 37 C.F.R. § ........................................ 9
`
`D. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................. 10
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ........... 10
`
`A. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ............................. 10
`
`B. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) AND RELIEF
`
`REQUESTED ....................................................................................................... 10
`
`1. The Grounds for Challenge ..................................................................... 10
`
`2. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .............................. 11
`
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE
`
`’477 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ......................................................................... 13
`
`A. GROUND 1: PAULS IN VIEW OF BROOKS RENDERS CLAIMS 1-29 OBVIOUS ..... 13
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`
`Petitioners Sony Corporation and Polycom, Inc. (“Petitioners”) request Inter
`
`I.
`
`
`Partes Review of Claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477 B2 (“the ’477 Patent”).
`
`Ex. 1001, ’477 Patent. As demonstrated by Petitioners below, the purported
`
`distinguishing features of the ’477 Patent of compressing and decompressing data
`
`based on the throughput (bandwidth) of a communication channel were known in
`
`the prior art.
`
`During its twenty-two month journey at the Office, from filing to issuance,
`
`the application that issued as the ’477 Patent was allowed over and over again—a
`
`total of 9 times. After each allowance the applicants loaded the Office with more
`
`prior art. There were 12 supplemental information disclosure statements in all, and
`
`the ’477 Patent has 50 pages of references cited on its face. At several points, after
`
`the first four notices of allowance, the applicants amended the claims, and amended
`
`the claims again following the seventh notice of allowance. In each instance the
`
`amended claims were promptly allowed less than a month later.
`
`Although there was a lot of activity, one common landmark bypassed on this
`
`trip through the Office was any substantive rejection based on prior art. The claims
`
`submitted with the application were never rejected, in any version, as anticipated or
`
`obvious. And so, in the 50-page preamble of references appended to the ’477 Patent,
`
`not one was ever used by the Examiner in a rejection. Two references that do not
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`appear in the 50-page list are Pauls and Brooks, presented here for the first time as
`
`a basis for finding Claims 1-29 obvious. The Board should find each of these claims
`
`unpatentable, and cancel them, because the claims cover adaptive data compression
`
`techniques that were well known in the art before the earliest possible priority date
`
`of the ’477 Patent.
`
`II.
`SUMMARY OF THE ’477 PATENT
`A. THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF THE ’477 PATENT
`
`The ’477 Patent describes and claims a system for compressing video data
`
`based on throughput, or bandwidth, of a communications channel. See ’477 Patent
`
`(Ex. 1001) at 9:27-30, Claim 1. The focus of the written description is not on the
`
`data compression algorithms themselves, which were well known. See, e.g., id. at
`
`1:37-38 (“There are a variety of data compression algorithms that are currently
`
`available ….”); 4:63-64 (“A rich and highly diverse set of lossless data compression
`
`and decompression algorithms exist within the current art.”). According to the
`
`applicants, what was needed was “a system and method that would provide dynamic
`
`modification of compression system parameters,” which would balance the
`
`compression speed and the resulting compression ratio of an algorithm. See id. at
`
`1:63-67.
`
`Many of the examples described in the written description involve interactions
`
`between a processor and a storing device. See generally ’477 Patent (Ex. 1001). For
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`instance, “a preferred system in which this invention is employed comprises a data
`
`storage controller that preferably uses a real-time data compression system to
`
`provide ‘accelerated’ data storage and retrieval bandwidths.” Id. at 9:32-35. In this
`
`embodiment, “a controller tracks and monitors the throughput (data storage and
`
`retrieval) of a data compression system and generates control signals to
`
`enable/disable different compression algorithms when, e.g., a bottleneck occurs so
`
`as to increase the throughput and eliminate the bottleneck.” Id. at 10:3-9.
`
`The written description describes available compression algorithms that are
`
`either symmetrical or asymmetrical. See id. An asymmetrical algorithm is “one in
`
`which the execution time for the compression and decompression routines differ
`
`significantly.” Id. at 10:12-15. “[E]ither the compression routine is slow and the
`
`decompression routine is fast or the compression routine is fast and the
`
`decompression routine is slow.” Id. at 10:16-18. A symmetrical algorithm is “one in
`
`which the execution time for the compression and the decompression routines are
`
`substantially similar.” Id. at 10:20-23. A controller selects the appropriate
`
`compression algorithm to use in any particular circumstance, and one factor driving
`
`that selection is “the overall throughput (bandwidth) of the host system.” See id. at
`
`11:43-47. “Another factor that is used to determine the compression algorithm is the
`
`type of data to be processed.” Id. at 11:48-49. In embodiments, access profiles are
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`used that enable “the controller 11 to select a suitable compression algorithm based
`
`on the data type.” Id. at 11:49-12:3.
`
`The written description outlines three different access profiles and describes
`
`how those access profiles would associate with available compression encoders (i.e.,
`
`asymmetrical with slow compression, symmetrical, and asymmetrical with fast
`
`compression). See id. at 12:5-13:24. For instance, Access Profile 1 involves a
`
`situation, such as compression of an operating system, where “the decompression
`
`routine would be executed significantly more times than the corresponding
`
`compression routine.” Id. at 12:12-22. In this situation, “it is preferable to utilize an
`
`asymmetrical algorithm that provides a slow compression routine and a fast
`
`decompression routine so as to provide an increase in the overall system
`
`performance” as compared to a symmetrical algorithm. Id. at 12:23-32. Access
`
`Profile 2 involves a situation, such as automatic updates of an inventory database,
`
`where “the compression routine would be executed significantly more times than the
`
`decompression routine.” Id. at 12:33-41. Here, the system would use an
`
`asymmetrical algorithm with fast compression and slow decompression. See id.
`
`Finally, Access Profile 3 involves a situation, such as a document or spreadsheet,
`
`where there are a similar number of compressions and decompressions and, thus, a
`
`symmetrical algorithm is used. See id. at 12:42-52. These access profiles are either
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`known a priori or they are determined prior to compression so that the appropriate
`
`compression algorithm can be selected. See id. at 13:11-17.
`
`The claims in the ’477 Patent are not directed to embodiments that involve
`
`adaptive compression based on the performance or capabilities of a disk storage
`
`device, which make up much of the written description. Compare generally id. at
`
`9:25-20:45 with id. at Claim 1. Instead, these claims are directed to adapting
`
`compression based on the throughput of a communications channel. See id. at Claim
`
`1. The written description is short on details as to this embodiment, but it does state
`
`that “the present invention may be employed in a data transmission controller in a
`
`network environment
`
`to provide accelerated data
`
`transmission over a
`
`communications channel (i.e., effectively increase the transmission bandwidth by
`
`compressing the data at the source and decompressing data at the receiver, in real-
`
`time).” Id. at 15:5-13; see also id. at 8:36-43 (system includes a data transmission
`
`controller); 16:41-44 (the data storage controller “may be utilized as a controller for
`
`transmitting data (compressed or uncompressed) to and from remote locations ….”).
`
`As noted in the specification, “data compression can reduce the time to transmit data
`
`by more efficiently utilizing low bandwidth data links.” Id. at 4:32-34.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`B. SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’477 PATENT
`
`The application that issued as the ’477 Patent was filed on October 6, 2015
`
`and claims priority through a chain of continuations back to February 13, 2001.1 See
`
`’477 Patent (Ex. 1001); see also ’477 File History (Ex. 1002) at 1 (Transmittal
`
`Form).
`
`Prior to any substantive examination the applicants filed a preliminary
`
`amendment to replace the claim term “encoder” with “algorithm” on December 11,
`
`2015. Id. at 1484-1502. Later during prosecution, and after several Notices of
`
`Allowance, the “algorithm” claim term was changed to an “encoder” that configured
`
`to utilize an algorithm by way of a preliminary amendment filed May 15, 2017. On
`
`January 28, 2016, the Examiner issued a non-final Office Action objecting to parts
`
`of the specification and claims and rejecting all claims as indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112 because the claims were directed to selecting a compression algorithm without
`
`“compressing the video data using the selected algorithm.” Id. at 1284-1290. There
`
`were no subsequent rejections, and no rejections were ever made during prosecution
`
`based on prior art.
`
`Following an examiner interview on March 23, 2016, and without amending
`
`the claims as suggested by the Examiner in the first Office Action, a Notice of
`
`Allowance was mailed on April 26, 2016. Id. at 625-627. Several weeks later an
`
`
`1 For purposes of this Petition only, Petitioners do not contest this priority claim.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) was filed along with a Request for
`
`Continued Examination (RCE), kicking off a 16-month period of filing RCE’s and
`
`accompanying IDS’s that led to nine separate Notices of Allowance and two
`
`intervening claim amendments, each of which was met by a Notice of Allowance
`
`several weeks later. The ’477 patent issued on September 19, 2017.
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`A. REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST
`
`Petitioners are real parties-in-interest. 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1). Additionally,
`
`Sony Electronics Inc., Sony Corporation of America, Sony Visual Products Inc.,
`
`Sony Video & Sound Products Inc., Sony Imaging Products & Solutions Inc., Sony
`
`Interactive Entertainment Inc., Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, and Plantronics,
`
`Inc. are real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. RELATED MATTERS
`
`The ’477 Patent has been asserted against Petitioners in the following cases:
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sony Electronics, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-
`
`01693-JFB-SRF (D. Del.) and Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Polycom, Inc.,
`
`Case No. 1:17-cv-02692-RBJ (D. Colo.). Additionally, the ’477 Patent has been
`
`asserted in at least the following cases: Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. LG
`
`Electronics Inc., et al., Case No. 6:18-cv-00215 (E.D. Tex.); Realtime Adaptive
`
`Streaming LLC v. Haivision Network Video Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01520-JFB-SRF
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`(D. Del.); Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`
`01692-JFB-SRF (D. Del.); Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`
`Case No. 6:17-cv-00591-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 6:18-cv-00113-JRZG (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Hulu LLC, Case No. 2:17-07611-SIO-FFM
`
`(C.D. Cal.); Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`
`Case No. 1:18-cv-01173 (D. Colo.); Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Intel
`
`Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-01175 (D. Colo.); Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`
`v. Mitel Networks, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-01177 (D. Colo.); Realtime Adaptive
`
`Streaming LLC v. Avaya Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-01046 (D. Colo.); Realtime
`
`Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Broadcom Corporation et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01048
`
`(D. Colo.); Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Google LLC et al., Case No. 2:18-
`
`cv-03629 (C.D. Cal.); Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Wowza Media Systems
`
`LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00927 (D. Colo.); Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v.
`
`Adobe Systems Incorporated, Case No. 1:18-cv-10355 (D. Mass.); Realtime
`
`Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-02869 (D. Colo.); Realtime
`
`Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Brightcove Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01519 (D. Del.);
`
`and Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:17-cv-
`
`00549 (E.D. Tex.). Further, the ’477 Patent has been challenged in a petition for
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`inter partes review filed June 4, 2018 in Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v. Realtime Adaptive
`
`Streaming LLC, PTAB-IPR2018-01187.
`
`C. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8
`
`Petitioners provide the following designation and service information for lead
`
`and back-up counsel. 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (b)(4). Please direct all
`
`correspondence regarding this proceeding to lead and back-up counsel at their
`
`respective email addresses listed below. 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4).
`
`Lead Counsel
`Eric A. Buresh (Reg. No. 50,394)
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`ptab@eriseip.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`7015 College Blvd., Suite 700
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Abran J. Kean (Reg. No. 58,540)
`abran.kean@eriseip.com
`ptab@eriseip.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`5600 Greenwood Plaza Blvd., Suite 200
`Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`
`Jennifer C. Bailey (Reg. No. 52,583)
`jennifer.bailey@eriseip.com
`ptab@eriseip.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`7015 College Blvd., Suite 700
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`
`Chris R. Schmidt (Reg. No. 63,982)
`chris.schmidt@eriseip.com
`ptab@eriseip.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`7015 College Blvd., Suite 700
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`D. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`
`The undersigned submitted payment by deposit account with the filing of this
`
`Petition authorizing the Office to charge $41,600. 37 C.F.R. § 42.103.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’477 Patent is available for IPR and that the Petitioners
`
`are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims of the ’477
`
`Patent. Specifically, Petitioners state: (1) Petitioners are not the owner of the ’477
`
`Patent, (2) Petitioners have not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any
`
`claim of the ’477 Patent, and (3) this Petition is filed less than one year after any
`
`Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’477 Patent.
`
`B. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) AND RELIEF
`
`REQUESTED
`
`In view of the prior art claims 1-29 of the ’477 Patent are unpatentable and
`
`should be cancelled. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1).
`
`1. The Grounds for Challenge
`
`Based on the prior art references identified below, IPR of the Challenged
`
`Claims should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`Ground 1: Claims 1-29 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Pauls in view of Brooks.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`
`Reference
`Exhibit Nos.
`1004, 1005
`
`Section IV identifies where each element of the Challenged Claim is found in the prior
`
`art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied
`
`upon to support the challenges are provided above and the relevance of the evidence to
`
`the challenges raised herein is provided in Section V. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).
`
`Exhibits 1001-1038 are also attached.
`
`2. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`
`Generally in IPR proceedings, claim terms of an unexpired patent should be
`
`given their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144-46 (2016).
`
`Petitioners understand that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may soon
`
`apply the standard applied by Article III courts (i.e., the Phillips standard).
`
`Petitioners propose constructions that are necessary for this proceeding to apply the
`
`prior art presented here to the Challenged Claims. Petitioners believe their proposed
`
`constructions are consistent with both the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”)
`
`and Phillips standards. Petitioners propose all claim terms not specifically discussed
`
`below should be given their plain and ordinary meaning in light of the specification.
`
`This is not a waiver of any argument in any future proceedings that might involve
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`applying the claims in a different context. Petitioners do not waive any argument in
`
`any future proceeding that claim terms in the ’477 Patent are indefinite or otherwise
`
`invalid, nor do Petitioners waive their right to raise additional issues of claim
`
`construction that might be relevant to litigation but irrelevant to this proceeding.
`
`a)
`
`“throughput of a communications channel”
`
`The term “throughput of a communications channel” in Claim 1 should be
`
`interpreted to include “bandwidth of a communications channel.” Throughput in the
`
`context of a communications channel should be understood to mean bandwidth
`
`because the written description of the ’477 Patent consistently defines throughput as
`
`bandwidth. See id. at 1:30 (“actual or expected throughput (bandwidth)”); 7:67-8:1
`
`(same); 9:29-30 (same); 11:52-53 (“the overall
`
`throughput (bandwidth)”).
`
`Additionally, throughout the written description, the described embodiments are
`
`consistently referred to as providing “bandwidth sensitive” data compression. See
`
`id. at 8:4-6 (describing “bandwidth sensitive” data compression); 8:43-45 (same);
`
`9:6-16 (introducing Figs. 1 and 3; same); 13:26-28 (describing Fig. 2; same). Further
`
`still, the concept of bandwidth is also described in the ’477 Patent as a concept that
`
`applies to communications channels. See id. at 4:32-34 (describing “low bandwidth
`
`data links”); 14:66-15:5 (describing “increase[ing] the transmission bandwidth by
`
`compressing the data at the source and decompressing data at the receiver ….”).
`
`3. Level of Skill of Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would be a person
`
`having, as of February 13, 2001: (1) at least an undergraduate degree in computer
`
`science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar technical field;
`
`(2) a working knowledge of compression techniques for various types of media; and
`
`(3) two or more years of experience (or with a graduate degree in the above-stated
`
`fields, one or more years of experience) in analysis, design, or development related
`
`to media compression, with additional education substituting for experience and vice
`
`versa. See Bajaj Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 24-26.
`
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`OF THE ’477 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. GROUND 1: PAULS IN VIEW OF BROOKS RENDERS CLAIMS 1-29 OBVIOUS
`
`Pauls was filed on September 30, 1997 and issued on July 19, 2005.
`
`Accordingly, Pauls qualifies as prior art as to the ’477 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e) (pre-AIA). See Pauls (Ex. 1004). Pauls was not cited as prior art of record
`
`and was not discussed during prosecution of the ’477 Patent. See generally ’477
`
`Patent (Ex. 1001); ’477 File History (Ex. 1002).
`
`Pauls teaches adaptive communications formatting, such as compression, for
`
`improving data transfer performance over a communications network. See Pauls
`
`(Ex. 1004) at Abstract. Compression can be done using any of numerous well-known
`
`encoding algorithms. See id. at 3:26-46. Pauls lists several exemplary encoders and
`
`associated algorithms that its system can select from, and the selection is based on
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`various factors, including the nature of the communications network connecting a
`
`user to an access server. See id. Thus, for each type of data that is to be transmitted
`
`across a network, Pauls teaches a plurality of data compression, or transcoding,
`
`techniques:
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 3; see also id. at 5:43-50 (describing, inter alia, “a plurality of text,
`
`speech/voice and video/image transcoding techniques 32-n ….”).
`
`The data selector described in Pauls provides for adaptive transcoding, and
`
`thus determines which encoder and algorithm to use based on “factors such as the
`
`nature of the communications network 16 connecting the user 14 to the access server
`
`20, the preferences of the user 14, and the data type of the data ….” See id. at 3:64-
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`4:5. The goal is to “facilitate data transmission with acceptable quality levels.” See
`
`id. at 3:11-14. The first factor, which considers the nature of the communications
`
`channel, looks to several sub-factors, including: “whether the communications
`
`system is wired or wireless, whether the communications system is analog or digital,
`
`the available bandwidth, the bit rate, the signal-to-noise ratio, the bit error rate, and
`
`the transmission delay ….” See id. at 4:12-18. Specifically, Pauls describes the
`
`differences between wired and wireless connections, noting that “the transmission
`
`times for data over wireless connections are typically greater than the transmission
`
`times for the same data over wired connections.” See id. at 4:29-31. Because the
`
`characteristics of a communications channel can change over time, or can change
`
`from one channel to the next, Pauls notes that it would be desirable to compress data
`
`as much as possible to reduce the transmission time over connections that have less
`
`available bandwidth, such as wireless connections. See id. at 4:34-40. Pauls
`
`describes this decision as a balancing exercise, where “the benefits realized in
`
`facilitating data transmission should … be balanced against losses associated with
`
`compression ….” See id.
`
`For video data, Pauls notes that there are several compression techniques that
`
`were well-known in the art, including H.263, MPEG and MPEG-2. See id. at 3:26-
`
`45. Compressing the data “facilitates data transmission by reducing the amount of
`
`data to be transmitted which, in turn, decreases the time required to transmit the data
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`(i.e., transmission time) from the access server to the user over a transmission
`
`channel of limited bandwidth (i.e., slower access speeds).” Id. at 27-34. Pauls
`
`emphasizes that “[e]ach of the aforementioned encoding algorithms have associated
`
`different levels or percentages of compression.” Id. at 3:43-45. Pauls also notes that
`
`there can be trade-offs because some compression algorithms “have associated loss
`
`that may adversely affect data quality.” Id. at 3:34-35. In addition to the different
`
`compression levels across compression algorithms (e.g., H.263 as compared to
`
`MPEG-2), Pauls also notes that compression levels are adjustable within a single
`
`compression algorithm. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 5 (describing H.263 as having a bit rate
`
`that ranges between 8-24 Kbps). That is because these well-known compression
`
`algorithms, such as H.263, allowed for frame quality adjustments based on the target
`
`bit rate. See Bajaj Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 54-55; see also generally id. at ¶¶ 1-82.
`
`The disclosure in Pauls includes an example of compression algorithms that
`
`would be appropriate “for transmission of particular data types over wireless
`
`connections.” See Pauls (Ex. 1004) at 7:9-21; Fig. 5. As noted by Pauls, wireless
`
`connections generally have less available bandwidth, and so the compression
`
`algorithms described in this example achieve a compression level that results in a
`
`low bit rate. See id.; see also id. at 4:31-34. In this example, when the data selector
`
`recognizes the capabilities of the wireless communication channel, the system
`
`compresses video and image data using H.263. See id. at Fig. 5. Whereas MPEG has
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`a bit rate of 1.5 Mbps and MPEG-2 has a bit rate of 2.0 Mbps, by using an encoder
`
`with an H.263 compression algorithm for video data to be transmitted over a wireless
`
`connection, the system described in Pauls is able to achieve a bit rate of 8-24 Kbps.
`
`See id.; see also Bajaj Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 68.
`
`In implementation, Pauls describes an access server receiving, analyzing,
`
`modifying, and transmitting a bitstream that includes at least one data parameter that
`
`relates to a throughput of a communications channel. For instance, Pauls teaches
`
`that “[w]hen the bitstream 23 arrives at the access server, the bitstream 23 includes
`
`the data and user indicator-control information for identifying the user to whom the
`
`data is intended.” Pauls (Ex. 1004) at 3:16-19. “The data is formatted by access
`
`server 20 and transmitted to the user 14 via bitstream 25, which includes encoded
`
`data, error control information … and data type indicator-control information.” Id.
`
`at 3:19-25.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`Id. at Fig. 2 (illustrating incoming bitstream 23 and outgoing bitstream 25). “At the
`
`access server 20, the data is formatted using a mixture of transcoding techniques and
`
`error control schemes to facilitate data transmission within acceptable quality
`
`levels.” Id. at 3:12-15.
`
`Several data parameters come from the user indicator-control information that
`
`is part of bitstream 23. These data parameters are accessible to the access server and
`
`its data selector through the use of user table 40. See id. at 6:4-24. User table 40 can
`
`be built beforehand, when a user provides information as part of a subscriber form,
`
`or in real time when the user accesses the access server. See id. at 40-53. In either
`
`case, the information in user table 40 relates to various parameters, including the
`
`nature of the communications network that connects the user to the access server.
`
`See id. at 6:4-21 (“The transcoding techniques and error control schemes in the table
`
`40 specified for each user and data type (and/or sub-type) should reflect the
`
`aforementioned factors, i.e., the nature of the communications network connecting
`
`the user to the access server, the equipment and software capabilities and/or
`
`preferences of the user and the access server, and the data type of the data.”). That
`
`information about the communications channel includes data parameters related to
`
`the throughput of the network. See id. at 4:11-17 (“The nature of communications
`
`system depends on sub-factors such as whether the communications system is wired
`
`or wireless, whether the communications system is analog or digital, the available
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`bandwidth, the bit rate, the signal-to-noise ratio, the bit error rate and the
`
`transmission delay.”).
`
`Pauls is analogous art to the ’477 Patent. The field of endeavor of the ’477
`
`Patent should be defined to include systems and methods for compressing data based
`
`on bandwidth. See, e.g., ’477 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:26-35; Claim 1. Like the ’477
`
`Patent, Pauls relates to compressing data to improve data transfer performance over
`
`communications networks, and the compression technique used is adaptive to,
`
`among other things, the nature of the communications network. See Pauls (Ex. 1004)
`
`at Abstract; see also Bajaj Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 67-69. Pauls is also reasonably
`
`pertinent to at least one problem with which the inventors of the ’477 Patent were
`
`concerned. For example, the ’477 Patent inventors described the problem of
`
`selecting a compression algorithm from the wide variety of available algorithms. See
`
`’477 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:54-62. Pauls addresses this same problem by providing
`
`adaptive compression, where the selection of compression encoder and algorithm is
`
`based on the nature of the communications channel, user preferences, or data type.
`
`See Pauls (Ex. 1004) at Abstract; see also Bajaj Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 67-69.
`
`Brooks was filed on February 10, 2000 and issued on November 28, 2006.
`
`Accordingly, Brooks qualifies as prior art as to the ’477 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e) (pre-AIA). See Brooks (Ex. 1005). Brooks was not cited as prior art of record
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`and was not discussed during prosecution of the ’477 Patent. See generally ’477
`
`Patent (Ex. 1001); ’477 File History (Ex. 1002).
`
`Brooks teaches real time video data formatting that is adaptive to the
`
`capabilities of a communications channel and the requirements of the device that
`
`will receive the video. See Brooks (Ex. 1005) at 3:8-14. There are several different
`
`encoding algorithms taught by Brooks, including “MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4,
`
`*.avi, *.mov, *.rm, *.aff, and the like.” See id. at 19:48-55. Brooks describes and
`
`illustrates a computing system outputting video data to devices that are “coupled to
`
`computer network 160 with different bandwidth limited connections.” See id. at
`
`6:24-7:19; Figs. 1, 5A, 5B.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The system described in Brooks compresses the data differently based at least in part
`
`on the bandwidth of the communications channel. See id. There are several
`
`implementation examples in Brooks describing how this system would work in
`
`practice. See, e.g., id. at 6:24-7:19; Fig. 1. For instance, when the communications
`
`channel is a DSL connection, and where “the bandwidth is relatively large, network
`
`connection 230 is capable of providing computing system 140 with enough video
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`data to display up to a 640x480 pixel color image at 10 frames
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
