`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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