Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper 29
`Entered: April 15, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`NETFLIX, INC., and COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`IPR2018-016301
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and
`KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`1 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, which filed a petition in IPR2019-
`01109, has been joined as a party to this proceeding.
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper 29
`Entered: April 15, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`NETFLIX, INC., and COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`IPR2018-016301
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and
`KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`1 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, which filed a petition in IPR2019-
`01109, has been joined as a party to this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`
`We have jurisdiction to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 6, and this Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`For the reasons that follow, we determine Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 7, 8, 15–19, 23, 24, 28, and 29 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477 B2 are unpatentable.
`I. INTRODUCTION
`A. Procedural History
`Netflix, Inc., (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting
`
`an inter partes review of claims 7, 8, 15–19, 23, 24, 28, and 29 of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,769,477 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’477 patent”). Realtime Adaptive
`Streaming LLC (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response
`(Paper 12, “Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we instituted
`an inter partes review of all challenged claims on all proposed grounds of
`unpatentability. See Paper 13 (“Dec. to Inst.”), 60.
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
`(Paper 17, “PO Resp.”), to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 18,
`“Reply”). Patent Owner then filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 22, “PO Sur-Reply”).
`An oral argument was held on October 15, 2019. A transcript of the
`oral argument is included in the record. Paper 28 (“Tr.”).
`B. Real Parties-in-Interest
`Petitioner certifies that it and Netflix Streaming Services, Inc. are real
`parties-in-interest. Pet. 71. Additionally, joined Petitioner, Comcast Cable
`Communications, LLC, certifies that it and Comcast Corporation are real
`parties-in-interest. See IPR2019-00786, Paper 1, 67.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`
`C. Related Matters
`Petitioner informs us of multiple pending district court proceedings
`involving the ’477 patent, some of which involve Petitioner. Pet. 71–74.
`Patent Owner informs us of two pending inter partes review petitions
`challenging the ’477 patent, IPR2018-01413 and IPR2018-01187. Paper 9,
`1 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices). We note IPR2018-01413 was
`terminated prior to the issuance of a decision on institution. IPR2018-
`01413, Paper 10.
`
`D. The ’477 Patent
`The ’477 patent was filed on October 6, 2015, and is titled “Video
`Data Compression Systems.” Ex. 1001, code (54). The ’477 patent issued
`on September 19, 2017. Id. at code (45).
`1. Written Description
`The specification is directed to systems and methods for “compressing
`and decompressing based on the actual or expected throughput (bandwidth)
`of a system employing data compression and a technique of optimizing
`based upon planned, expected, predicted, or actual usage.” Ex. 1001, 7:66–
`8:3, 9:27–31. The ’477 patent states that “dynamic modification of
`compression system parameters so as to provide an optimal balance between
`execution speed of the algorithm (compression rate) and the resulting
`compression ratio, is highly desirable.” Id. at 1:64–67. The ’477 patent also
`states that it seeks to “provide[] a desired balance between execution speed
`(rate of compression) and efficiency (compression ratio).” Id. at 8:24–27.
`For example, where the speed of the encoder causes a “bottleneck” because
`“the compression system cannot maintain the required or requested data
`rates,” “then the controller will command the data compression system to
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`utilize a compression routine providing faster compression . . . so as to
`mitigate or eliminate the bottleneck.” Id. at 14:14–24. The ’477 patent
`discloses that it can resolve “bottlenecks” in the throughput of a system by
`switching between different compression algorithms applied to data. Id. at
`10:3–8.
`One embodiment of the ’477 patent is shown in Figure 2, reproduced
`below.
`
`
`Figure 2, above, illustrates a method for providing bandwidth
`sensitive data compression. Id. at 13:25–27. The data compression system
`is initialized during a boot-up process after a computer is powered on and a
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`default compression/decompression routine is initiated (step 20). Id.
`at 13:31–34. According to the ’477 patent, the default algorithm comprises
`an asymmetrical algorithm, because asymmetric algorithms provide “a high
`compression ratio (to effectively increase the storage capacity of the hard
`disk) and fast data access (to effectively increase the retrieval rate from the
`hard disk).” Id. at 13:35–45. According to the ’477 patent, depending on
`the access profile, 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
`performance that would be obtained using a symmetrical algorithm.” Id. at
`12:23–28. The ’477 patent notes that symmetric routines “compris[e] a fast
`compression routine.” Id. at 14:40–43. In one embodiment, the ’477 patent
`discloses a controller “tracks and monitors the throughput . . . of the data
`compression system 12.” Id. at 10:54–57. When the throughput of the
`system falls below a predetermined threshold, the system generates control
`signals to enable/disable different compression algorithms. Id. at 10:55–58.
`2. Illustrative Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 7, 8, 15–19, 23, 24, 28, and 29, which
`depend directly or indirectly from either independent claim 1 or 20.
`Unchallenged independent claims 1 and 20, as well as challenged dependent
`claims 7, 16, and 23 are reproduced below:
`1. A system, comprising:
`a plurality of different asymmetric data compression encoders,
`wherein each asymmetric data compression encoder of the
`plurality of different asymmetric data compression encoders
`is configured to utilize one or more data compression
`algorithms, and
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`
`wherein a first asymmetric data compression encoder of the
`plurality of different asymmetric data compression encoders
`is configured to compress data blocks containing video or
`image data at a higher data compression rate than a second
`asymmetric data compression encoder of the plurality of
`different asymmetric data compression encoders; and
`one or more processors configured to:
`determine one or more data parameters, at least one of the
`determined one or more data parameters relating to a
`throughput of a communications channel measured in
`bits per second; and
`select one or more asymmetric data compression encoders
`from among the plurality of different asymmetric data
`compression encoders based upon, at least in part, the
`determined one or more data parameters.
`Ex. 1001, 20:57–21:13.
`7. The system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the
`determined one or more data parameters comprises:
`a resolution of the data blocks containing video or image
`data.
`Id. at 21:35–38.
`16. The system of claim 1, wherein the selected one or more
`asymmetric data compression encoders are utilized to
`compress the data blocks containing video or image data
`to create one or more compressed data blocks, and
`wherein a descriptor indicating the selected one or more
`asymmetric data compression encoders is included with
`the one or more compressed data blocks.
`Id. at 22:4–10.
`
`20. A system, comprising:
`a plurality of video data compression encoders;
`wherein at least one of the plurality of video data compression
`encoders is configured to utilize an asymmetric data
`compression algorithm, and
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`
`wherein at least one of the plurality of video data compression
`encoders is configured to utilize an arithmetic data
`compression algorithm,
`wherein a first video data compression encoder of the plurality
`of video data compression encoders is configured to
`compress at a higher compression ratio than a second data
`compression encoder of the plurality of data compression
`encoders; and
`one or more processors configured to:
`determine one or more data parameters, at least one of the
`determined one or more data parameters relating to a
`throughput of a communications channel; and
`select one or more video data compression encoders from
`among the plurality of video data compression encoders
`based upon, at least in part, the determined one or more
`data parameters.
`Id. at 22:20–42.
`23. The system of claim 20, wherein at least one of the
`determined one or more data parameters are related to a
`resolution of one or more data blocks containing video
`data.
`Id. at 22:52–54.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`
`E. Evidence of Record and Asserted Challenges to Patentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`Claims Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §2
`Reference(s)/Basis
`15–19, 28, 29
`103
`Imai3, Pauls4
`7, 23
`103
`Imai, Pauls, Dawson5
`8, 24
`103
`Imai, Pauls, Lai6
`Pet. 4.
`Petitioner submits (i) the Declaration of James A. Storer, Ph.D.
`(“Dr. Storer”) in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review (Ex. 1003) and
`(ii) the Declaration of Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis, Ph.D (“Dr. Hall-Ellis”) (Ex.
`1023) regarding the public availability of certain prior art references. Patent
`Owner submits the Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger, Ph.D. (“Dr. Zeger”) in
`Support of Patent Owner’s Response (Ex. 2002).
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Legal Standards
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if “the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to
`35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq. effective on March 16, 2013. Because the ’477
`patent issued from an application filed after March 16, 2013, we apply the
`AIA versions of the statutory bases for unpatentability.
`3 Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H11331305, published
`Nov. 30, 1999 (Ex. 1005, “Imai”).
`4 European Patent Application Publication No. EP0905939A2, published
`Mar. 31, 1999 (Ex. 1007, “Pauls”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 5,553,160, issued Sep. 3, 1996 (Ex. 1025, “Dawson”).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 6,407,680, issued Jun. 18, 2002 (Ex. 1016, “Lai”).
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness,
`i.e., secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas
`City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). “[I]t is error to reach a conclusion of
`obviousness until all [the Graham] factors are considered.” Apple v.
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 839 F.3d 1034, 1048 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc)
`(citations omitted). “This requirement is in recognition of the fact that each
`of the Graham factors helps inform the ultimate obviousness determination.”
`Id.
`
`“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review
`petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the
`grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never
`shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics,
`Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in
`inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of
`proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re
`Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`
`Thus, to prevail in an inter partes review, Petitioner must explain how
`the proposed combinations of prior art would have rendered the challenged
`claims unpatentable. At this final stage, we determine whether a
`preponderance of the evidence of record shows that the challenged claims
`would have been obvious over the cited prior art.
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
`time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. “The importance of
`resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of
`maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v.
`Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The person of ordinary
`skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the
`relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573,
`1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected
`by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
`Cir. 2001). Factors that may be considered in determining the level of
`ordinary skill in the art include, but are not limited to, the types of problems
`encountered in the art, the sophistication of the technology, and educational
`level of active workers in the field. GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. In a given case,
`one or more factors may predominate. Id. Generally, it is easier to establish
`obviousness under a higher level of ordinary skill in the art. Innovention
`Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A
`less sophisticated level of skill generally favors a determination of
`nonobviousness . . . while a higher level of skill favors the reverse.”).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`
`Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to
`the ’477 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of
`experience in data compression or a person with a master’s degree in
`electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a
`specialization in data compression.” Pet. 7. Petitioner relies on the
`Declaration of Dr. Storer to support its contentions. Dr. Storer proffers the
`same level of skill as that argued by Petitioner but also states that “[a] person
`with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet
`this standard.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 65.
`Patent Owner does not specifically contest Petitioner’s definition of a
`person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. Dr. Zeger states,
`“I do not disagree with those views [of Dr. Storer], except to add that a
`qualified [person of ordinary skill in the art] would additionally be trained in
`evaluating both the costs and benefits of a design choice.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 24.
`Dr. Zeger further states:
`I would consider anyone who does not recognize those realities
`or who forms design motivations because a particular
`combination of known elements or knowledge in the field is
`possible to not be a [person of ordinary skill in the art], regardless
`of that person’s education, experience, or technical knowledge.
`Likewise, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] in this field would
`not form design motivations because a design may provide some
`benefit without consideration of the relevance of the benefit in a
`specific context, or the costs of the design choice. The ordinarily
`skilled artisan in this field is not impulsive. That person is
`deliberative and considered.
`Id. ¶ 25.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`
`Based on our review of the ’477 patent, the types of problems and
`solutions described in the ’477 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony
`of Dr. Storer and Dr. Zeger, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the claimed invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in
`electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two
`years of experience in data compression,” or that such a person would have
`had “a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a
`similar field with a specialization in data compression.” Our analysis below
`would not differ, however, if we were to adopt Dr. Zeger’s definition.
`C. Claim Construction
`For petitions filed before November 13, 2018, we interpret the claims
`of an unexpired patent that will not expire before issuance of a final written
`decision using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC
`v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016); see also Changes to the Claim
`Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,340 (Oct. 11,
`2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018).
`Under that standard, claim terms are presumed to be given their ordinary and
`customary meaning, as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill
`in the art, in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). To rebut this presumption by acting
`as a lexicographer, the patentee must give the term a particular meaning in
`the specification with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In
`re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Limitations, however, are
`not to be read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In addition, the Board may not “construe
`claims during [an inter partes review] so broadly that its constructions are
`unreasonable under general claim construction principles.” Microsoft Corp.
`v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Only terms that
`are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent
`necessary to resolve the controversy. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem.
`Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
`Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (cited with approval in
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013,
`1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
`Petitioner proposes to construe “asymmetric data compression
`encoders” as “an encoder(s) configured to utilize a compression algorithm in
`which the execution time for the compression and decompression routines
`differ significantly.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further proposes to construe “data
`block” as “a unit of data comprising more than one bit” (id. at 8) and “video
`or image data profile” as “information used to determine which compression
`algorithm should be used for a video or image data type” (id. at 10). Patent
`Owner has not provided proposed alternative constructions for these terms,
`but rather states that the terms do not require construction in order to resolve
`the parties’ dispute. PO Resp. 7. We agree with Patent Owner and
`determine that an explicit construction of these claim terms is not necessary
`for the purposes of our analysis.
`Nevertheless, although neither party proposes an express construction
`of the term “configured to,” it appears throughout the claims and its meaning
`is central to the application of the prior art to the claims. We discuss its
`interpretation below, in context.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`
`D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 15–19, 28, and 29 of the ’477 Patent in
`View of Imai and Pauls
`Petitioner contends claims 15–19, 28, and 29 of the ’477 patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Imai and Pauls.
`Pet. 19–54. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contentions. PO Resp. 7–33.
`For reasons that follow, we determine Petitioner has established by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 15–19, 28, and 29 of the ’477
`patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Imai
`and Pauls.
`1. Overview of Imai (Ex. 1005)
`Imai is a Japanese Patent Application7 titled “Transmitting apparatus
`and transmitting method, receiving apparatus and receiving method, as well
`as providing medium.” Ex. 1005, Title. Imai is related to encoding and
`transmitting digital signals to the receiving side where they are decoded and
`reproduced in real time. Ex. 1005 ¶ 1. According to Imai, real time
`encoding, transmitting, and decoding can present several problems. Id.
`¶¶ 3–5. For example, the transmission rate of the network can vary and drop
`below the data rate of the coded data, which leads to the encoded digital
`signals arriving too late. Id. ¶ 3. The hardware capabilities or decoding
`method of the receiving device can also slow down real time decoding of the
`received signals. Id. ¶ 4. To address these problems, Imai includes a
`plurality of coding methods and selects the appropriate coding method to
`
`
`7 The original application is in Japanese and provided in the record as
`Exhibit 1004. A certified English language translation of Imai is provided in
`the record as Exhibit 1005. All citations to Imai in the Petition, Patent
`Owner Response, and this Decision are made to Exhibit 1005.
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`encode the digital signals, or part of the digital signals, based on certain
`relevant factors. Id. ¶ 7. The digital signals Imai is particularly concerned
`with are audio signals, and the plurality of coding methods can include
`PCM, ADPCM, layers 1, 2, 3, of MPEG, ATRAC, ATRAC2, and HVXC.
`Id. ¶ 67. The factors that can affect which coding method is used include the
`processing capability of the receiving device (see id. at Fig. 9, ¶¶ 88–99),
`transmission rate of the network (see id. ¶¶ 145–166), and the audio content
`of the audio signals (see id. ¶¶ 101–102). For example, Imai describes a
`situation where the audio signal is predominantly voice, in which case
`HVXC may be appropriately used as the coding method. Id. ¶ 102. On the
`other hand, if the audio signal is predominantly instrument sounds, then
`ATRAC may be appropriately used as the coding method. Id.
`One embodiment of a coding unit in Imai is illustrated in Figure 5,
`reproduced below.
`
`
`As shown above in Figure 5, audio signals are encoded using a chosen
`encoder 531-53N. Id. ¶ 66, Fig. 5. According to Imai, the encoders are
`constructed to encode the audio signal with different coding methods from
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`each other. Id. ¶ 67. Selection instructing unit 55 then decides the
`appropriate coding methods corresponding to encoders 531 to 53N, and
`instructs encoding selecting circuit 56 to select the decided coding method.
`Id. ¶ 70. Imai discloses that switch 52 may be changed midway through a
`sequence of continued encoding of the audio signal, so one portion of the
`audio signal is encoded with one coding method while another part of the
`audio signal is encoded with another coding method. Id. ¶ 72. Imai further
`discloses that header inserting circuit 54 adds, to the coded data of each
`frame, an ID indicating the coding method selected to encode the frame. Id.
`The coded data added with the ID in header inserting circuit 54 is supplied
`to multiplexing unit 42 and transmitted to a client. Id. ¶ 74.
`Another embodiment of a coding unit in Imai is illustrated in
`Figure 16, reproduced below. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 165–171.
`
`
`As shown above in Figure 16, the audio signal is encoded into coded
`date by encoders 531–53N and stored in storage 911–91N. Id. ¶ 167.
`According to Imai, when a request for an audio signal is issued from client
`terminal 3, encoding selecting circuit 56 controls read-out unit 92 in
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`accordance with an instruction based on the encoding schedule provided
`from selection instructing unit 55. Id. ¶ 169.
`2. Overview of Pauls (Ex. 1007)
`Pauls is a European Patent Application Publication titled “Adaptive
`communication data formatting,” and is directed to improving data transfer
`performance over data networks using adaptive communication formatting.
`Ex. 1007, codes (54), (57). Pauls discloses that adaptive communication
`formatting includes encoding (or compressing) data and applying error
`control schemes to reduce the amount of data being transmitted and to
`correct/conceal errors occurring during data transmission. Id. at code (57).
`Pauls further discloses that data is formatted using a mixture of transcoding
`techniques and error control schemes. Id. ¶ 9. Pauls provides a list of
`different encoding algorithms that can be used. Id. ¶ 10. Pauls teaches that
`the particular transcoding techniques used to format the data should be
`adaptive to factors, such as the nature of the network, the preferences of the
`users, and the data type. Id. ¶ 12.
`One embodiment of Pauls’s system is illustrated in Figure 3,
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 3 depicts Pauls’s access server 20 as including data selector 30,
`a plurality of text/speech/voice/video/image transcoding techniques 32-n, a
`plurality of error control schemes 34-n, and combiner 38 for multiplexing
`formatted data. Id. ¶¶ 19, 20.
`Examples of transcoding techniques and error control schemes used in
`Pauls are listed in Figure 5, reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 5 illustrates chart 50, which shows data sub-types and their
`associated bit rates, encoding algorithms and the bit rate of the data after
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`encoding (or compression), and error control schemes. Ex. 1007 ¶ 24. Pauls
`teaches that data with an audio sub-type has a 256 Kbps bit rate. Id.
`According to Figure 5 of Pauls, “[i]f a transcoding technique with a VCELP
`encoding algorithm is used to encode the audio data, the bit rate can be
`reduced to 8 Kbps.” Id.
`3. Analysis of Cited Art as Applied to Independent Claim 1
`a. “a plurality of different asymmetric data compression encoders,
`wherein each asymmetric data compression encoder of the
`plurality of different asymmetric data compression encoders is
`configured to utilize one or more data compression algorithms”
`Claims 15 and 16 depend directly from independent claim 1 and,
`therefore, recite all the limitations of claim 1. Although claim 1 is not
`challenged in the Petition, we will address each limitation of this
`independent claim before analyzing the limitations recited specifically in the
`challenged dependent claims. Claim 1 recites “a plurality of different
`asymmetric data compression encoders, wherein each asymmetric data
`compression encoder of the plurality of different asymmetric data
`compression encoders is configured to utilize one or more data compression
`algorithms.” Ex. 1001, 20:58–63.
`Petitioner contends Imai teaches this limitation, because Imai
`discloses “a plurality of coding methods corresponding to the encoders 531
`to 53N” and “[the] encoders 531 to 53N employ ‘different coding methods
`from each other’ and are thus different encoders.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1005
`¶¶ 67, 70; Ex. 1003 ¶ 126–129). According to Petitioner, “Imai’s encoders
`comprise a plurality of different asymmetric data compression encoders that
`utilize data compression algorithms” because the cited “MPEG layers 1, 2,
`and 3, and the ATRAC and ATRAC 2 compression algorithms are each
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`different asymmetric data compression algorithms that are each used by
`Imai’s encoders.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 67, 68; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 128–
`130).
`
`Petitioner further contends that Imai’s teaching is equally applicable
`to video. Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 172). According to Petitioner, a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would have known to use Imai’s teachings for
`video data because video is an “asymmetric application” that realizes the
`same benefits from compression with asymmetric encoders and algorithms
`as other media, such as audio. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 135; Ex. 1012, 5).
`Petitioner notes that asymmetric application for compression/decompression
`was known in the art because the MPEG family of audio compression
`algorithms, discussed in Imai, uses a slow, complex algorithm for
`compression and a simpler algorithm for decompression. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 135; Ex. 1009, 81; Ex. 1010, 7).
`Petitioner also contends Pauls teaches this limitation because “[t]he
`access server 20 comprises a data selector 30, a plurality of text,
`speech/voice and video/image transcoding techniques 32–n (i.e.,
`transcoding techniques for text, speech/voice and video/image data types), a
`plurality of text, speech/voice and video/image error control schemes 34–n
`(i.e., error control schemes for text, speech/voice and video/image data
`types) and a combiner 38 for multiplexing formatted data.” Pet. 26 (citing
`Ex. 1007 ¶ 19). Petitioner argues that the “access server” and “plurality of
`different transcoders 32–n” are depicted in Pauls’s Figure 3 (reproduced
`above). Id.
`Petitioner further argues that several of Pauls’ data compression
`algorithms are asymmetric and that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`would have recognized that at least the H.263, MPEG, and MPEG-2
`compression algorithms are asymmetric compression algorithms. Id. at 28.
`According to Petitioner, these algorithms use motion compensation, which
`causes the compression routine of each to require substantially more
`execution time than the respective decompression routine. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 140). Petitioner concludes that Pauls teaches “a plurality of
`different asymmetric data compression encoders” because Pauls teaches a
`plurality of different transcoders that can be configured to utilize different
`asymmetric compression algorithms, including H.263, MPEG, and MPEG2.
`Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 139–141).
`Patent Owner does not address specifically this limitation of
`independent claim 1, but nonetheless the burden remains on Petitioner to
`demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378.
`Based on the entire record before us, including (1) Imai’s teaching
`that encoders 531 to 53N use different coding methods from each other and
`are thus different encoders (see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 67, 70), (2) Pauls’s
`identification of several compression algorithms that may be used as an
`encoder, including H.263, MPEG and MPEG2, and JPEG (see Ex. 1007
`¶ 10, Fig. 5), and (3) Dr. Storer’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have recognized that at least the H.263, MPEG, and MPEG2
`compression algorithms are asymmetric compression algorithms because
`motion compensation causes the compression routine of each to require
`substantially more execution time than the respective decompression routine
`(Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73, 74, 169–171, 176–178; see Ex. 1009, 50–52), we determine
`Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combined
`teachings from Imai and Pauls satisfy the challenged claim limitation.
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`Patent 9,769,477 B2
`
`
`b. “first asymmetric data compression encoder” “configured
`to compress data blocks containing video or image data at a
`higher data compression rate than” a “second asymmetric
`data compression encoder”
`Claim 1 recites “wherein a first asymmetric data compression encoder
`of the plurality of different asymmetric data compression encoders is
`configured to compress data blocks containing video or image data at a
`higher data compression rate than a second asymmetri
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
