`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-01630
`Patent No. 9,769,477
`____________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`Background of the ’477 patent and challenged claims ................................... 3
`
`III.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions ...................................................... 7
`
`IV. Ground 1 does not show that the prior art discloses or suggests “a 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” .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Limitation 1[B] requires two asymmetric data compression
`encoders, with the first encoder being configured to compress
`video or image data faster than the second encoder ............................ 7
`
`2.
`
`The Petition’s allegations do not even attempt to show that Imai
`teaches one encoder that is “configured to” compress at a higher
`rate than another encoder ................................................................... 12
`1.
`Petitioner’s argument that limitation 1[B] would be met by
`chance reads “configured to” out of the limitation ...................13
`The Petition’s argument that Imai teaches “different
`asymmetric data compression encoders” that have “different
`data compression rates” is both inadequate and unsupported ..15
`a)
`Imai’s use of “compression rate”....................................16
`b)
`Imai’s reference to “amount of computation for
`decoding” ........................................................................18
`Imai’s reference to “64 Kbps, 32K bps, 24 Kbps” .........19
`c)
`The Petition’s suggested modification runs contrary to Imai’s
`goal of ensuring that audio data can be reproduced in real time
` ...................................................................................................21
`
`3.
`
`C.
`
`The Petition also fails to show that Pauls teaches one encoder
`that is “configured to” compress at a higher rate than another
`encoder, and thus cannot demonstrate obviousness ........................... 26
`1.
`The Petition points to no disclosure or discussion of
`compression rates of any encoder or algorithm in Pauls ..........27
`a)
`“different levels or percentages of compression” ...........28
`b)
`Pauls’s Fig. 5 bitrates ......................................................28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`2.
`
`Ground 1’s Pauls-based theory further fails because it also fails
`to meet the “configured to” requirement of Claim 1 ................30
`
`D.
`
`The combination of Imai and Pauls does not address the failures
`of either reference to disclose limitation 1[B].................................... 31
`
`V. Ground 1 further fails with respect to Claim 20’s dependents because
`it does not purport to address the additional limitations of Independent
`Claim 20 ........................................................................................................ 33
`
`VI. The Petition does not explain how a POSITA would combine the
`references ...................................................................................................... 35
`
`A. Ground 1 fails to explain what would be the “first” or “second”
`encoders of Claims 1 and 20 .............................................................. 37
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2 fails to explain how Dawson would be combined with
`Pauls and Imai .................................................................................... 46
`
`VII. The Petition fails to explain why a POSITA would make its alleged
`modifications ................................................................................................ 49
`
`VIII. The Petition does not address the tradeoffs inherent in its motivation
`to modify Pauls’s encoders ........................................................................... 58
`
`IX. The Petition’s analysis of all challenged claims fails because the
`Petition relies on its flawed analysis of the independent claims for the
`claims’ shared limitations ............................................................................. 62
`
`Conclusion .................................................................................................... 62
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`Description
`Declaration of Kayvan B. Noroozi in Support of Motion for
`Admission Pro Hac Vice.
`Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger, Ph.D.
`
`Transcript of Oral Deposition of James Storer, Ph.D, taken in
`IPR2018-01630 on May 8, 2019.
`Digital Compression and Coding of Continuous-Tone Still
`Images – Requirements and Guidelines (JPEG Standard)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`It is axiomatic that unpatentability cannot be found where the Petition fails
`
`to explain how the prior art, alone or combined, reads on to and discloses each and
`
`every limitation of the challenged claims. The instant Petition fails at that crucial
`
`level. The Petition never identifies a specific “first asymmetric data encoder” that
`
`is “configured to” compress faster than a “second asymmetric data encoder.” And
`
`Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Storer, was unable to provide any further detail under
`
`cross-examination. Rather than identify any “first” encoder that would be
`
`“configured” to be faster than any “second encoder,” Dr. Storer merely stated that
`
`any encoder could constitute the “first” or “second” encoders. Infra at VI.A. That
`
`assumes that the claim simply requires two encoders, whereas in fact the claim
`
`requires one encoder that is “configured to” compress faster than a second encoder.
`
`Infra at IV.A. Indeed, the Petition simply attempts to read “configured to” out of
`
`the claim—contravening numerous Federal Circuit precedents. And by stating that
`
`either of Imai’s encoders could compress at a faster rate than the other one, the
`
`Petition actually concedes than Imai cannot meet Claim 1: to admit that either
`
`encoder could be faster is to admit that neither encoder is configured to be faster
`
`than the other. Ex. 2002 ¶51.
`
`Moreover, the Petition entirely fails to recognize—and address—the distinct
`
`requirements of independent Claim 20 and its dependents, which require
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`

`

`compression at a higher ratio, rather than a higher rate (or speed), as recited in
`
`
`
` Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Claim 1.
`
`The Petition thus fails to show that the prior art either taught the challenged
`
`claims or rendered them obvious.
`
`The Petition also fails to provide an adequate motivation to combine,
`
`notwithstanding the Federal Circuit’s decision in Realtime v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2019). The motivation to combine inquiry is necessarily fact-specific. A
`
`simpler combination entails a lower hurdle than a more complex one. In Realtime
`
`v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit merely addressed the adequacy of the petition’s
`
`showing that an ordinary artisan would have “turned to” a secondary reference in
`
`order to “better understand or interpret” the primary reference’s compression
`
`algorithms. Id. at 1374 (“This is enough evidence to support a finding that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have turned to Nelson, a well-known data
`
`compression textbook, to better understand or interpret O’Brien's compression
`
`algorithms.”) (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit did not hold that the
`
`motivation to combine evidence in Realtime v. Iancu was sufficient to prove that
`
`an ordinary artisan would have modified the primary reference in light of the
`
`secondary reference. To the contrary, the theory accepted in that case relied
`
`entirely on the teachings of the primary reference alone to meet all claim elements,
`
`and did not require any modification to the primary reference. Id. By contrast, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`combinations at issue here require substitutions and modifications to Imai in view
`
`of Pauls. But the Petition does not demonstrate why an ordinary artisan would have
`
`been motivated to make those specific proposed modifications, as the law requires.
`
`Thus, as this Response demonstrates, the Petition cannot prevail.
`
`II. Background of the ’477 patent and challenged claims
`
`Petitioner challenges Claims 7, 8, 15-19, 23, 24, 28, and 29 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,769,477. The Petition’s challenge is based on the following Grounds:
`
`Ground
`Ground 1
`Ground 2
`
`Ground 3
`
`Challenged Claims
`Basis
`References
`Imai and Pauls Obviousness (§103) 15-19, 28, 29
`Imai, Pauls, and
`Obviousness (§103) 7, 23
`Dawson
`Imai, Pauls, and
`Lai
`
`Obviousness (§103) 8, 24
`
`The ’477 patent “is directed to a system and method for compressing and
`
`decompressing based on the actual or expected throughput (bandwidth) of a system
`
`employing data compression . . . .” Ex. 1001 at 7:66-8:3. The invention 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 utilize a compression routine providing faster
`
`compression . . . so as to mitigate or eliminate the bottleneck.” Id. at 14:14-24.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Claim 1 is directed to a system that selects among “asymmetric data
`
`
`
` Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`compression encoders” where “a first asymmetric data compression encoder . . . is
`
`configured to compress . . . at a higher data compression rate than a second
`
`asymmetric data compression encoder.” Claim 1 of the ’477 patent recites:
`
`Element Claim 1
`
`1[PR]
`
`A system, comprising:
`
`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,
`
`and
`
`1[B]
`
`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
`
`1[C]
`
`one or more processors configured to:
`
`determine one or more data parameters, at least one
`
`of the determined one or more data parameters
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`relating to a throughput of a communications
`
`channel measured in bits per second; and
`
`1[D]
`
`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.
`
`
`
`The specification of the ‘477 patent makes clear that “data compression rate”
`
`
`
`
`
`refers to the “execution speed of the algorithm.” Id. at 1:63-67. Thus, Claim 1 and
`
`its dependents require a “first asymmetric data compression encoder” that is
`
`“configured to compress” at a higher execution speed than a “second asymmetric
`
`data compression encoder.”
`
`Independent Claim 20, by contrast, requires “a first video data compression
`
`encoder . . . configured to compress at a higher compression ratio than a second
`
`data compression encoder.” Thus, unlike Claim 1, which recites a compression
`
`rate (i.e., speed), Claim 20 recites compression ratio (i.e., size of the compressed
`
`data compared to the uncompressed data). Claim 20 further requires “at least one
`
`of the video data compression encoders” to be “configured to utilize an arithmetic
`
`data compression algorithm.” Claim 20 recites:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Element Claim 20
`
`20[PR]
`
`A system comprising;
`
`20[A]
`
`a plurality of video data compression encoders;
`
`20[B]
`
`wherein at least one of the plurality of video data
`
`compression encoders
`
`is configured
`
`to utilize an
`
`asymmetric data compression algorithm, and
`
`20[C]
`
`wherein at least one of the plurality of video data
`
`compression encoders is configured to utilize an
`
`arithmetic data compression algorithm,
`
`20[D]
`
`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
`
`20[E]
`
`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
`
`20[F]
`
`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.
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`III. Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions
`
`The Board does not construe claim terms unnecessary to resolve the
`
`controversy. Shenzhen Liown Electronics Co. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-01656, Paper 7 at 10 (Feb. 8, 2016) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci.
`
`& Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`Petitioner has proposed constructions for the terms “asymmetric data
`
`compression encoder[s],” “data blocks,” and “video or image data profile.” Pet. 6-
`
`11. These terms do not require construction in order to resolve the parties’ dispute.
`
`Rather, as this Response demonstrates, the Board should deny the Petition in full
`
`regardless of Petitioner’s proposed constructions.
`
`IV. Ground 1 does not show that the prior art discloses or suggests “a 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”
`
`The Petition’s Ground 1 fails because it does not show that Imai, Pauls, or
`
`the combination disclose the elements of limitation 1[B].
`
`A. Limitation 1[B] requires two asymmetric data compression
`encoders, with the first encoder being configured to compress
`video or image data faster than the second encoder
`
`Claim 1 requires that its “first asymmetric data compression encoder” be
`
`configured to compress data “at a higher data compression rate” than the “second
`
`asymmetric data compression encoder.” See Ex. 1001 at Cl. 1[B] (“a first
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`asymmetric data compression encoder . . . configured to compress . . . at a higher
`
`data compression rate than a second asymmetric data compression encoder”)
`
`(emphasis added). The Petition defines “data compression rate” as “the execution
`
`or algorithmic speed of a compression encoder.” Pet. 29. It further contends that “it
`
`is the throughput of the asymmetric data compression encoder measured by the
`
`amount of input data that it can compress per unit of time at a given
`
`compression ratio.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, under the Petition’s definition of
`
`“data compression rate,” Claim 1 requires “a first asymmetric data compression
`
`encoder” that is configured to compress more input data per unit of time at a given
`
`compression ratio than a “second asymmetric data compression encoder.” Ex. 2002
`
`¶37.
`
`Moreover, the requirement that the “first asymmetric data compression
`
`encoder” is “configured to compress . . . at a higher data compression rate than a
`
`second asymmetric data compression encoder” means the relationship between the
`
`first and second encoders’ compression rates cannot arise as a side effect of some
`
`other design choice, or by chance. Ex. 2002 ¶38. Rather, the claim’s recitation of
`
`“configured” requires that the “first encoder” must compress at a higher rate than
`
`the “second encoder” because it is designed to do so. Id.
`
`To that effect, the Federal Circuit has distinguished “configured to” as
`
`narrower than “capable of” or “suited to.” For instance, in Apex Eyewear, the court
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`distinguished “configured to” from the broader terms “capable of” or “suitable
`
`for.” See Aspex Eyewear v. Marchon Eyewear, 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012) (construing “adapted to” in the narrower sense of “configured to,” “made
`
`to,” or “designed to,” rather than in the “broader sense” of “capable of” or
`
`“suitable for.”). It thus concluded that an apparatus or method that “simply . . . can
`
`be made to serve [the] purpose” recited in the claim is not a method that is
`
`“configured to accomplish the specified objective” of the claim. Id. (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`The Federal Circuit has likewise contrasted “configured to” and “capable of”
`
`or “suited for” in other decisions. See In re Man Mach. Interface Techs., 822 F.3d
`
`1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (distinguishing between “configured to” and “capable
`
`of” or “suited for”) (citing Apex); In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014) (same).
`
`And district courts have also construed “configured to” in a manner that
`
`requires design for the purpose for which the claim element is “configured” and
`
`excludes an arrangement or capability arising as a side effect of another design
`
`choice. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I v. Altera, 2013 WL 3913646, at *7 (D.
`
`Del. July 26, 2013) (construing “configured to” as “to set up for operation
`
`especially in a particular way”); SIPCO v. Abb, 2012 WL 3112302, at *7 (E.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Tex. July 30, 2012) (construing “configured to” as “actually programmed or
`
`
`
` Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`equipped with hardware or software to”).
`
`Here too, the meaning of “configured to” requires that the “first asymmetric
`
`data compression encoder” be designed to accomplish the specified objective of
`
`“compress[ing] . . . at a higher data compression rate than a second asymmetric
`
`data compression encoder.” Ex. 2002 ¶38. The “first asymmetric data compression
`
`encoder” cannot “compress . . . at a higher data compression rate than a second
`
`asymmetric data compression encoder” as a mere side effect of another design
`
`choice. Id.
`
`That understanding is further supported by the ’477 patent itself, which uses
`
`“configured to” to convey a purposeful design rather than a side effect or
`
`accidental arrangement. Ex. 2002 ¶39. For example, the specification describes
`
`design features that can more efficiently use space on a disk, followed by the
`
`statement: “In this way, a system can be configured to achieve greater speed, while
`
`not sacrificing disk space.” Ex. 1001 at 18:26-41; Ex. 2002 ¶40. Similarly, the
`
`specification describes a “programmable logic device” being “configured for its
`
`environment.” Ex. 1001 at 16:37-40. A “programmable” device is not “configured
`
`for its environment” on accident, but rather is intentionally programmed to operate
`
`in a specific and consistent manner with that environment in mind. Ex. 2002 ¶41.
`
`Thus, in both these instances, the “configuring” is an intentional design choice
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`through programmed logic rather than mere happenstance. Id. at ¶42. Moreover,
`
`the design is for the specific purpose for which the “system” or “programmable
`
`logic device” is “configured”: to “achieve greater speed” or be programmed “for
`
`its environment,” respectively. Id. at ¶43. The configuring is not the side effect of a
`
`design choice with some other purpose. Id.
`
`Moreover, the “configured to” limitation cannot be met by either (1) an
`
`accidental difference in compression rates; or (2) a difference in compression rates
`
`arising as a side effect of some other design choice, because the invention relies on
`
`the predictable relationship between the compression rates of the “first asymmetric
`
`data compression encoder” and the “second asymmetric data compression
`
`encoder.” Id. at ¶44. The invention would not function if the relationship were
`
`reversed. Id. Specifically, the specification describes switching from an encoder
`
`having a relatively slow compression rate to one having a “faster rate of
`
`compression” when the “throughput falls below a predetermined threshold” “so as
`
`to increase the throughput.” Ex. 1001 at 8:12-18. If the arrangement or
`
`configuration of the encoders were reversed, the opposite would occur: the system
`
`would switch from the relatively fast encoder to the relatively slow encoder,
`
`reducing the throughput and exacerbating the bottleneck at the encoder it was
`
`seeking to alleviate. Ex. 2002 ¶45. Thus, the specification’s description of the
`
`invention makes clear that the predictable arrangement of the encoders is crucial,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`and that a difference in two encoders’ compression rates that is not specifically
`
`planned would not suffice for the “first asymmetric data compression encoder” and
`
`the “second asymmetric data compression encoder” to serve their purposes. Id. at
`
`¶46.
`
`Accordingly, limitation 1[B] requires (1) “a first asymmetric data
`
`compression encoder” that is (2) designed to (3) compress more input data per unit
`
`of time than (4) “a second asymmetric data compression encoder.” Id. at ¶47.
`
`B.
`
`The Petition’s allegations do not even attempt to show that Imai
`teaches one encoder that is “configured to” compress at a higher
`rate than another encoder
`
`Limitation 1[B] specifically requires encoders compressing “video or image
`
`data.” The Petition implicitly recognizes that Imai contains no such teaching. So
`
`the Petition proposes to modify Imai to include video encoders. Pet. 25-26, 33.
`
`By contrast, however, the Petition never even attempts to demonstrate that
`
`Imai—either unmodified or modified—would meet the requirement of having a
`
`specific “first” encoder that is configured to compress the video or image data at a
`
`higher rate than a specific “second” encoder, as limitation 1[B] requires. Instead,
`
`the Petition alleges that Imai might sometimes compress data with one encoder at a
`
`higher rate than another one if Imai were to use at least two encoders. Pet. 29. As
`
`demonstrated below, that theory fails to meet the claim. The Petition thus cannot
`
`prevail as to Claim 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner’s argument that limitation 1[B] would be met by
`chance reads “configured to” out of the limitation
`
`The Petition argues that if Imai were to use at least two encoders, it is likely
`
`that one of them would be faster than another by mere happenstance. Pet. 29 (“A
`
`POSITA would have understood that it is only a remote possibility that any two
`
`different asymmetric data compression encoders would have the same execution
`
`speed, and therefore the obvious result of including two or more different
`
`asymmetric compression encoders is that one encoder would have a higher data
`
`compression rate than another encoder.”).
`
`But as explained above, caselaw from the Federal Circuit and district courts,
`
`and the patent’s specification confirm that “configured to” is used to show
`
`purposeful design rather than arrangements that arise by chance or some other
`
`design choice. Supra at IV.A.
`
`Thus, a system that includes two asymmetric data compression encoders that
`
`happen to compress at different rates would not have a “first asymmetric data
`
`compression encoder” that is “configured to compress . . . at a higher data
`
`compression rate than a second asymmetric data compression encoder” as required
`
`by limitation 1[B]. Ex. 2002 ¶50.
`
`Indeed, by stating that either of Imai’s encoders could compress at a faster
`
`rate than the other one, the Petition actually concedes than Imai cannot meet
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Claim 1: to admit that either encoder could be faster is to admit that neither
`
`encoder is configured to be faster than the other. Ex. 2002 ¶51.
`
`The Board’s decision in Commvault v. Realtime Data, IPR2017-02178, is
`
`instructive. There, the Board addressed a system claim which, under the Board’s
`
`construction, recited a processor configured to make a “binary choice between
`
`compressing a given data block using the single data compression encoder and
`
`compressing that data block using the one or more content-dependent data
`
`compression encoders.” Paper 13 at 4-5 (July 19, 2018). The petition offered an
`
`example of a circumstance where the reference would choose only one of the two
`
`types of encoders to compress a data block—a page of either text or image data. Id.
`
`The Board rejected the theory because “[e]ven if Petitioner is correct that it is
`
`possible, under the right circumstances, for the [asserted reference] to operate in a
`
`way that results in compressing an entire page of text or in compressing an entire
`
`page of non-text data, [the reference] does not teach or suggest the required binary
`
`choice between those two outcomes because its system is capable of compressing
`
`portions of a page using one method and other portions of the same page using a
`
`different method.” Id. at 5-6 (emphasis added).
`
`Here too, the mere possibility that Imai might sometimes operate with one
`
`encoder that operates at a higher compression rate than another encoder (and at
`
`other times operate with the other encoder operating at a higher rate) does not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`teach or suggest a “first asymmetric data compression encoder” that is “configured
`
`to compress . . . at a higher data compression rate than a second asymmetric data
`
`compression encoder.” Ex. 2002 ¶52.
`
` The Board should thus find that the Petition cannot meet Claim 1 because
`
`the Petition fails to meet the requirement of a first encoder that is configured to
`
`compress at a higher rate than a second encoder. Id. at ¶53.
`
`2.
`
`The Petition’s argument that Imai teaches “different
`asymmetric data compression encoders” that have
`“different data compression rates” is both inadequate and
`unsupported
`
`The Petition further argues that a POSITA “would have appreciated from
`
`Imai’s various teachings that the different asymmetric data compression encoders
`
`have different data compression rates, with some encoders having higher rates than
`
`others.” Pet. 30.
`
`As a threshold matter, that allegation is again inadequate: it does not
`
`demonstrate that Imai has a specific first encoder that is configured to compress at
`
`a higher rate than a specific second encoder, as Claim 1 requires. See supra at
`
`IV.B.1.
`
`Moreover, none of the Petition’s citations in support of its allegation that
`
`Imai teaches “asymmetric compression encoders that have different execution
`
`speeds,” Pet. 30, actually contain such a teaching. Ex. 2002 ¶54. In fact, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Petition points to no teaching in Imai regarding compression rate according to its
`
`own definition, i.e., speed of compression measured by input data compressed per
`
`unit of time. See supra at VI.A; Ex. 2002 ¶54.
`
`a)
`
`Imai’s use of “compression rate”
`
`Instead, the Petition obfuscates and misdirects with a specious quotation
`
`from Imai that uses the term “compression rate” but not in the way the ‘477 patent
`
`does. Ex. 2002 ¶55. Specifically, the Petition states that Imai “compares and
`
`contrasts different asymmetric data compression encoders in terms of their
`
`‘compression rate,’ and identifies several asymmetric data compression algorithms
`
`that ‘provide[] a high compression rate,’ referring to MPEG layer 3 and ATRAC 2
`
`as ‘example[s].’” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005 at [0068]). On that basis it concludes that
`
`Imai teaches “a first encoder that uses an asymmetric compression algorithm
`
`(MPEG layer 3) and is configured to compress data at a higher compression rate
`
`than a second encoder using another asymmetric algorithm (ATRAC 2).” Id.
`
`But the full quoted sentence reads: “Furthermore, example of the coding
`
`method, which provides a relatively less bit rate of the resulting coded data (i.e.,
`
`which provides a high compression rate), are MPEG layer 3 and ATRAC 2.” Ex.
`
`1005 at [0068] (emphasis added). The reference to “a relatively less bit rate”
`
`makes clear that Imai’s use of “compression rate” refers to the compression ratio,
`
`i.e., to how much the data was compressed, rather than the compression rate in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`undisputed meaning of the ‘477 patent and Claim 1, i.e., how quickly the data was
`
`compressed. Ex. 2002 ¶57. Because the degree of compression is high, the amount
`
`of data that is output from the encoder is low, and thus it provides “a relatively less
`
`bit rate of the resulting coded data.” Id.
`
`Indeed, Dr. Storer admitted on cross examination that Imai does not use the
`
`phrase, “compression rate,” as it is used in the claims. When asked to resolve the
`
`tension between (1) his earlier testimony that there is generally an inverse
`
`relationship between compression ratio and speed of compression, Ex. 2003 at
`
`110:1-5; and (2) Imai equating “a relatively less bit rate of the resulting coded
`
`data” with “a high compression rate;” Dr. Storer admitted that Imai was using the
`
`term differently:
`
`Q. In paragraph 68 in Imai -- that's on page 33 --it refers to relatively
`
`less bit rate of the resulting coded data and equates that with a high
`
`compression rate. And I'm wondering why the encoder with the lower
`
`bit rate of the resulting coded data would have the high compression
`
`rate.
`
`[Question repeated]
`
`THE WITNESS: So the paragraph also -- it should be read in context
`
`of the one preceding it. But to answer your question, the term ‘data
`
`compression rate’ is not standard in the art. It’s used in different ways.
`
`Ex. 2003 at 114:14-115:4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Thus, despite the specious word matching, the cited teachings do not pertain
`
`
`
` Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`to the encoders’ “compression rate” under the undisputed definition of
`
`“compression rate” in the ‘477 patent and Claim 1, including the Petition’s own
`
`definition. Supra at V.A; Ex. 2002 ¶59.
`
`The Petition’s assertion that Imai teaches “a first encoder that uses an
`
`asymmetric compression algorithm (MPEG layer 3) and is configured to compress
`
`data at a higher compression rate than a second encoder using another asymmetric
`
`algorithm (ATRAC 2)” is thus entirely unsupported. Pet. 30. Indeed, Dr. Storer
`
`testified on cross examination that it was not even possible to say whether MPEG
`
`layer 3 is faster than ATRAC 2. Infra at VI.A. This teaching cannot teach or
`
`suggest limitation 1[B].
`
`b)
`
`Imai’s reference to “amount of computation for
`decoding”
`
`The Petition also argues that ATRAC is “a relatively faster compression
`
`algorithm” and that “Imai teaches including asymmetric compression encoders that
`
`have different execution speeds.” Pet. 30. But the only evidence the Petition points
`
`to is Imai’s statement that ATRAC “requires a not so large amount of computation
`
`for decoding.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1005 at [0068]) (emphasis added). Again, that is
`
`not a teaching regarding the speed of encoding, i.e., “compression rate.” Ex. 2002
`
`¶61. The quoted sentence is describing the computation necessary for “decoding.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Case IPR2018-01630
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Id. And, according to the Petition, “compression rate” refers to the “algorithmic
`
`speed of a compression encoder,” rather than th