`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`____________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KENNETH A. ZEGER, PH.D., IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................. 3
`A.
`Engagement ...................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Background And Qualifications ........................................................ 4
`
`II. Materials Considered................................................................................... 7
`
`III. Relevant Legal Standards ............................................................................ 8
`A.
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ................................................. 8
`B.
`Burden Of Proof .............................................................................. 10
`C.
`Claim Construction ......................................................................... 11
`D. Obviousness .................................................................................... 11
`
`IV. The Claims Of The ‘477 Patent ................................................................. 13
`
`V.
`
`The Requirements Of Limitation 1[B] ....................................................... 15
`
`VI. Petitioner’s Obviousness Theory As To the Combination of Imai and
`Pauls ......................................................................................................... 18
`A.
`Petitioner’s Obviousness Theories Regarding Imai ......................... 18
`1. Obviousness Based On Probable Differences In Compression
` Rate ............................................................................................ 18
`2. Imai’s Purported References To Compression Rate .................... 20
`3. The Petition’s Suggested Modification To Imai ......................... 24
`Petitioner’s Obviousness Theories As To Pauls............................... 32
`1. Pauls’s Purported References To Compression Rate .................. 32
`2. Obviousness Based On Probable Differences In Compression
` Rate ............................................................................................ 34
`Petitioner’s Obviousness Theory As To the Combination Of
`Imai And Pauls ................................................................................ 35
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`VII. Petitioner’s Obviousness Theory As To The “first” And “second”
`Encoders Recited In Claims 1 And 20 ....................................................... 36
`
`VIII. Petition’s Motivation To Combine Imai And Pauls ................................... 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`IX. Petitioner’s Suggestion That A POSITA Would Configure The
`Combination Of Imai And Pauls To Use Arithmetic Encoding ................. 42
`
`X.
`
`Petitioner’s Obviousness Theory As To The Combination of Imai,
`Pauls, and Dawson .................................................................................... 45
`
`XI. Conclusion ................................................................................................ 48
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`I, Kenneth A. Zeger, Ph.D., a resident of San Diego, California, declare as
`
`
`
`
`
`follows:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`A. Engagement
`
`I have been retained by Patent Owner Realtime Adaptive Streaming
`
`LLC (“Realtime” or “Patent Owner”) through Zunda LLC to provide my opinions
`
`with respect to their Response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review in IPR2018-
`
`01187 (the “Petition”) as to U.S. Patent 9,769,477. Zunda LLC is being
`
`compensated at a per hour rate for my time spent on non-deposition tasks and for
`
`deposition time. I have no interest in the outcome of this proceeding and the
`
`payment of my fees is in no way contingent on my providing any particular
`
`opinions.
`
`
`
`As a part of this engagement, I have also been asked to provide my
`
`technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions regarding the Declaration of Dr.
`
`James E. Storer (“Storer Declaration,” Ex. 1003 to the Petition) with respect to the
`
`challenged claims of the ’477 patent.
`
`
`
`The statements made herein are based on my own knowledge and
`
`opinions.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Background And Qualifications
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`I received a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and
`
`B.
`
`
`Computer Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1984.
`
`
`
`I received a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1984.
`
`
`
`I received a Master of Arts degree in Mathematics from the University
`
`of California, Santa Barbara, CA in 1989.
`
`
`
`I received a Ph.D. degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering
`
`from the University of California, Santa Barbara, CA in 1990.
`
`
`
`I am currently a Full Professor of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). I have held this
`
`position since 1998, having been promoted from Associated Professor after two
`
`years at UCSD. I have been an active member of the UCSD Center for Wireless
`
`Communications for 20 years. I teach courses full-time at UCSD in the fields of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering, and specifically in subfields including
`
`communications, information theory, and data compression at the undergraduate
`
`and graduate levels. Prior to my employment at UCSD, I taught and conducted
`
`research as a faculty member at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign for
`
`four years, and at the University of Hawaii for two years.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
` My twenty-plus years of industry experience includes consulting work
`
`
`
`
`
`for the United States Department of Defense as well as for private companies such
`
`as Xerox, Nokia, MITRE, ADP, and Hewlett-Packard. The topics upon which I
`
`provide consulting expertise include data communications for wireless networks,
`
`digital communications, information theory, computer software, and mathematical
`
`analyses.
`
`
`
`I have authored approximately 75 peer-reviewed journal articles, the
`
`majority of which are on the topic of communications, information theory, or
`
`signal processing. I have also authored over 110 papers at various conferences and
`
`symposia over the past thirty-plus years, such as the: IEEE International
`
`Conference on Communications; IEEE Radio and Wireless Symposium; Wireless
`
`Communications and Networking Conference; IEEE Global Telecommunications
`
`Conference; International Symposium on Network Coding; IEEE International
`
`Symposium on
`
`Information Theory; UCSD Conference on Wireless
`
`Communications; International Symposium on Information Theory and Its
`
`Applications; Conference on Advances in Communications and Control Systems;
`
`IEEE Communication Theory Workshop; Conference on Information Sciences and
`
`Systems; Allerton Conference on Communications, Control, and Computing;
`
`Information Theory and Its Applications Workshop; Asilomar Conference on
`
`Signals, Systems, and Computers. Roughly half of those papers relate to data
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`compression. I also am co-inventor on a US patent disclosing a memory saving
`
`
`
`
`
`technique for image compression.
`
`
`
`I was elected a Fellow of the IEEE in 2000, an honor bestowed upon
`
`only a small percentage of IEEE members. I was awarded the National Science
`
`Foundation Presidential Young Investigator Award in 1991, which included
`
`$500,000 in research funding. I received this award one year after receiving my
`
`Ph.D.
`
`
`
`I have served as an Associate Editor for the IEEE Transactions on
`
`Information Theory and have been an elected member of the IEEE Information
`
`Theory Board of Governors for three, three-year terms. I organized and have been
`
`on the technical advisory committees of numerous workshops and symposia in the
`
`areas of communications and information theory. I regularly review submitted
`
`journal manuscripts, government funding requests, conference proposals, student
`
`theses, and textbook proposals. I also have given many lectures at conferences,
`
`universities, and companies on topics in communications and information theory.
`
`
`
`I have extensive experience in electronics hardware and computer
`
`software, from academic studies, work experience, and supervising students. I
`
`personally program computers on an almost daily basis and have fluency in many
`
`different computer languages.
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
` My curriculum vitae, attached to this declaration as Exhibit A,
`
`
`
`
`
`(“Zeger Curriculum Vitae”), lists my publication record in archival journals,
`
`international conferences, and workshops.
`
`II. Materials Considered
`
`I have been asked to provide a technical review, analysis, insights, and
`
`opinions. My technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions are based on almost
`
`38 years of education, research, and experience, as well as my study of relevant
`
`materials.
`
`
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the ’477 patent specification
`
`and claims. My understanding of the claims is based on the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the claims as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, unless the inventor has provided a special meaning for a term. My opinions set
`
`forth herein do not rest on a disagreement with Dr. Storer as to the meaning of any
`
`claim term or limitation.
`
`
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and the Board’s Decision to
`
`Institute in this proceeding and in IPR2018-01187.
`
`
`
`I have reviewed the Declaration of Dr. James E. Storer. I have also
`
`reviewed the Imai, Pauls, Dawson, and Lai references submitted by Petitioner in
`
`this proceeding, and am familiar with those references. In addition, I have
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`reviewed Dr. Storer’s deposition testimony in this proceeding. I have also
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`reviewed the prosecution history of the ’477 patent, the excerpt of Mark Nelson’s
`
`Data Compression Book submitted in this proceeding as Exhibit 1018, and the
`
`H.263 standard submitted in this proceeding as Exhibit 1020.
`
` This declaration represents only opinions I have formed to date. I may
`
`consider additional documents as they become available or other documents that
`
`are necessary to form my opinions. I reserve the right to revise, supplement, or
`
`amend my opinions based on new information and on my continuing analysis.
`
`III. Relevant Legal Standards
`
`
`I am not an attorney. I offer no opinions on the law. But counsel has
`
`informed me of the following legal standards relevant to my analysis here. I have
`
`applied these standards in arriving at my conclusions.
`
`A.
`
`
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`I understand that an analysis of the claims of a patent in view of prior
`
`art has to be provided from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of invention of the ’477 patent.
`
`
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I understand that
`
`I should consider the patent claims through the eyes of “a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art.” I understand that I should consider factors such as the educational
`
`level and years of experience of those working in the pertinent art; the types of
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`problems encountered in the art; the teachings of the prior art; patents and
`
`
`
`
`
`publications of other persons or companies; and the sophistication of the
`
`technology. I understand that the person of ordinary skill in the art is not a specific
`
`real individual, but rather a hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected
`
`by the factors discussed above.
`
`
`
`I understand that Dr. Storer states that a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art “would have been a person with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical
`
`engineering, 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 mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a
`
`similar field with a specialization in data compression. A person with less
`
`education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” Ex.
`
`1003 ¶65. I also note that he “considered the level of ordinary skill in the art on
`
`February 13, 2001.” Id. at n. 1.
`
`
`
`I do not disagree with those views, except to add that a qualified
`
`POSITA would additionally be trained in evaluating both the costs and benefits of
`
`a design choice. Those working in the field of the invention are trained both
`
`through formal education and their work experience to recognize that design
`
`choices can have complex consequences that have to be evaluated before a
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`motivation is formed to pursue the design choice, and before an expectation of
`
`
`
`
`
`success as to that design is formed.
`
`
`
`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 POSITA, regardless of
`
`that person’s education, experience, or technical knowledge. Likewise, a POSITA
`
`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.
`
` Throughout my declaration, even if I discuss my analysis in the
`
`present tense, I am always making my determinations based on what a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have known at the time of the
`
`invention. Based on my background and qualifications, I believe I have at least the
`
`experience and knowledge of a POSITA, and am qualified to offer the testimony
`
`set forth in this declaration.
`
`B.
`
`Burden Of Proof
`
`
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review the petitioner has the
`
`burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence.
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review the Board applies a
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation claim construction standard to claims in an
`
`unexpired patent.
`
`
`
`I understand, however, that the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`standard does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. I understand that the
`
`Board must always consider the claims in light of the specification and teachings in
`
`the patent and that a proper claim construction analysis corresponds with how the
`
`inventor describes his invention in the specification. I further understand that a
`
`proper claim construction should also take into account the patent’s prosecution
`
`history.
`
`
`
`I understand that the Board does not construe claim terms unnecessary
`
`to resolving the controversy.
`
`D. Obviousness
`
`I understand that a patent may not be valid even though the invention
`
`is not identically disclosed or described in the prior art if the differences between
`
`the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the relevant subject matter at the time the invention was made.
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`I understand that, to demonstrate obviousness, it is not sufficient for a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`petition to merely show that all of the elements of the claims at issue are found in
`
`separate prior art references or even scattered across different embodiments and
`
`teachings of a single reference. The petition must thus go further, to explain how a
`
`person of ordinary skill would combine specific prior art references or teachings,
`
`which combinations of elements in specific references would yield a predictable
`
`result, and how any specific combination would operate or read on the claims.
`
`Similarly, it is not sufficient to allege that the prior art could be combined, but
`
`rather, the petition must show why and how a person of ordinary skill would have
`
`combined them.
`
`
`
`I understand that where an alleged motivation to combine relies on a
`
`particular factual premise, the petitioner bears the burden of providing specific
`
`support for that premise. I also understand that a motivation to combine cannot be
`
`sufficiently alleged based merely on the purported benefits that would result from a
`
`proposed trade off. I understand that obviousness cannot be shown by conclusory
`
`statements, and that the petition must provide articulated reasoning with some
`
`rational underpinning to support its conclusion of obviousness. I also understand
`
`that skill in the art rarely operates to supply missing knowledge or prior art to show
`
`obviousness, nor does skill in the art act as a bridge over gaps in substantive
`
`presentation of an obviousness case.
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`IV. The Claims Of The ‘477 Patent
`
`In discussing Claim 1, I will refer to its limitations as they are labeled
`
`here:
`
`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
`
`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
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`1[C]
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`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.
`
`1[D]
`
`
`
`
`
`In discussing Claim 20, I will refer to its limitations as they are
`
`labeled here:
`
`Element Claim 20
`
`20[PR]
`
`A system comprising;
`
`20[A]
`
`20[B]
`
`20[C]
`
`20[D]
`
`20[E]
`
`
`
`
`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
`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
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`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.
`
`20[F]
`
`
`
`V. The Requirements Of Limitation 1[B]
` 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.” Ex. 1001 at Cl. 1[B]. And the
`
`Petition defines “data compression rate” as “the execution or algorithmic speed of
`
`a compression encoder.” Pet. 29. It further notes 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.
`
` Therefore, according to Petitioner’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.”
`
` The requirement that the “first asymmetric data compression encoder”
`
`is “configured to compress . . . at a higher data compression rate than a second
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`asymmetric data compression encoder” means that the relationship between the
`
`
`
`
`
`first and second encoders’ compression rates cannot arise by chance or as a side
`
`effect of some other design choice. In other words, a POSITA would understand
`
`the claim’s recitation of “configured” to require that the “first encoder” must
`
`compress at a higher rate than the “second encoder” because it is designed to do so.
`
` The ‘477 patent’s specification supports that understanding, as it uses
`
`“configured to” to convey a purposeful design as opposed to a side effect or
`
`accidental arrangement.
`
` For instance, 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.
`
` The specification also describes a “programmable logic device” being
`
`“configured for its environment.” Id. at 16:37-40. A POSITA would understand
`
`that 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 its environment in mind.
`
`
`
`In both examples the “configuring” is an intentional design choice
`
`through programmed logic rather than a chance occurrence.
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
` And the design is for the specific purpose for which the “system” or
`
`
`
`
`
`“programmable logic device” is “configured,” i.e., to “achieve greater speed” or be
`
`programmed “for its environment.” The configuring is not the side effect of a
`
`design choice with some other purpose.
`
` A person of ordinary skill would also understand that the usage of
`
`“configured to” cannot be met by an accidental difference in compression rates or a
`
`difference in compression rates arising as a side effect of some other choice
`
`because
`
`the
`
`invention relies on
`
`the predictable relationship between
`
`the
`
`compression rates of the two recited encoders. The invention would not work if the
`
`relationship were reversed.
`
` 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 configuration of the encoders were
`
`reversed, the opposite would occur: the system would switch from the relatively
`
`fast encoder to the relatively slow encoder, which would reduce the throughput and
`
`exacerbate the bottleneck at the encoder that the invention seeks to remedy.
`
`
`
`It is thus my opinion that the predictable arrangement of the encoders
`
`is crucial. A difference in two encoders’ compression rates that is not specifically
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`planned would not suffice for the “first asymmetric data compression encoder” and
`
`
`
`
`
`the “second asymmetric data compression encoder” to serve their purposes.
`
`
`
`I
`
`therefore conclude
`
`that
`
`limitation 1[B] has
`
`the following
`
`requirements: (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.”
`
`VI. Petitioner’s Obviousness Theory As To the Combination of Imai and
`Pauls
` As explained below, it is my opinion that Imai and Pauls do not teach
`
`the elements of limitation 1[B] alone or in combination.
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner’s Obviousness Theories Regarding Imai
`1. Obviousness Based On Probable Differences In
`Compression Rate
`
`
`
`I understand that the Petition alleges that limitation 1[B] is obvious
`
`because, if Imai were to use at least two encoders, it is likely that one of them
`
`would be faster than another. 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.”). I
`
`disagree with that reasoning.
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
` As explained above, limitation 1[B] requires purposeful design with
`
`
`
`
`
`respect to the encoders’ compression rates. Therefore, any system that includes two
`
`encoders with compression rates that vary by chance would not have a first
`
`encoder that is “configured to compress” at a higher data compression rate than a
`
`second encoder as required by limitation 1[B].
`
` Thus, the Petition’s statement that either of Imai’s encoders could
`
`compress at a faster rate than the other encoder demonstrates that Imai does not
`
`disclose Claim 1. Under the meaning of the ’477 patent’s usage of “configured to,”
`
`a statement that either encoder could be faster than the other is also a statement that
`
`neither is “configured to” be faster than the other.
`
`
`
`In my opinion, the possibility that Imai might have one encoder that
`
`operates at a higher compression rate than another, but may also operate with the
`
`relationship reversed, cannot teach a “first asymmetric data compression encoder”
`
`that is “configured to compress . . . at a higher data compression rate than a second
`
`asymmetric data compression encoder.”
`
` For the reasons stated above, it is my opinion that the Petition does
`
`not show that Claim 1 is obvious because it does not show any teaching of a first
`
`encoder that is configured to compress at a higher rate than a second encoder.
`
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Imai’s Purported References To Compression Rate
`
`2.
`I disagree with the Petition’s statement that a POSITA “would have
`
`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 I explain below, the portions of Imai
`
`that the Petition cites as disclosures regarding compression rates actually refer to
`
`other features of encoders. Indeed, the Petition does not point to any teaching in
`
`Imai regarding the speed of compression measured by input data compressed per
`
`unit of time.
`
` For instance, the Petition cites to Imai’s use of the term “compression
`
`rate,” but Imai does not use the term in the way the ‘477 patent does.
`
` 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]). But the cited 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].
`
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`Imai’s reference to “a relatively less bit rate” makes clear that Imai’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`use of “compression rate” refers to the compression ratio, or the degree of
`
`compression. 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.” Imai is using the term to describe how much the data was
`
`compressed, rather than the speed at which it was compressed, as the Petition
`
`indicates that Claim 1 uses the term.
`
`
`
`I therefore agree with Dr. Storer’s deposition testimony that Imai does
`
`not use “compression rate” in the same sense as Claim 1 uses the term. Ex. 2003 at
`
`114:14-115:4. In my opinion Imai is clearly using “compression rate” to mean
`
`compression ratio and he is not using it to refer at all to the speed of compression.
`
`In other words, Imai is not using compression rate in the same sense as in Claim 1.
`
` Thus, the cited passage does not pertain to “compression rate” as the
`
`Petition defines the term or as Claim 1 uses it.
`
` 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. I note that 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]).
`
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
`Imai’s reference to the “amount of computation for decoding” is not a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`teaching about “compression rate,” or the speed of encoding. Imai is describing the
`
`computation necessary for “decoding,” and the Petition defines “compression rate”
`
`as the “algorithmic speed of a compression encoder,” rather than the speed of a
`
`decoder. A description of the computational requirements of a decoder does not
`
`describe the speed of an encoder.
`
`
`
`Indeed, it would not be possible to determine or infer the speed of an
`
`encoder even if one knew the speed of a decoder. The relationship between
`
`encoding speed and decoding speed is inexact, and it varies depending on
`
`characteristics of hardware implementation and which encoding and decoding
`
`algorithms are used.
`
`
`
` Based on Imai’s reference to the amount of computation required for
`
`decoding ATRAC, the Petition concludes that “Imai teaches using an ATRAC
`
`encoder and explains how it is a relatively faster compression algorithm” and that
`
`“Imai teaches including asymmetric compression encoders that have different
`
`execution speeds.” Pet. 30. Both conclusions are incorrect for the reasons stated
`
`above. The cited language from Imai does not say that ATRAC is relatively faster
`
`at encoding than any other algorithm, and it does not describe the execution speed
`
`of any encoder.
`
`
`
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01630
`ZEGER DECLARATION
`
` The Petition also states, “Imai explains that ATRAC 2 can encode at
`
`
`
`
`
`various compression rates (e.g., ‘64 Kbps, 32K bps, 24 Kbps’).” Pet. 30 (quoting
`
`Ex. 1005 at [0069]). Under the Petition’s definition of “compression rate,” that is a
`
`misinterpretation of Imai. Imai states “Therefore, here, for example, all the
`
`encoders 531 to 53N perform encoding with ATRAC 2, while data rates of coded
`
`data outputted from the encoders are 64 Kbps, 32 Kbps, 24 Kbps, . . .,
`
`respectively.” Ex. 1005 at [0069].
`
` A person of ordinary skill would understand that the numbers
`
`preceding “Kbps” are bitrates. Those bitrates describe the rates at which data is
`
`output from the encoder. They do not describe the “compression rate,” of any
`
`encoder, which the Petition states is measured by the “amount of input data that
`
`[the encoder] can compress per unit of time.” Pet. 29. As explained above, the rate
`
`at which data is output from an encoder is not the encoder’s compression rate.
`
` Thus, I agree with Dr. Storer’s deposition testimony that Imai’s
`
`reference to “64 Kbps, 32K bps, 24 Kbps” describes output bitrates. Ex. 2003 at
`
`105:4-106:13.
`
` Accordingly, it is my opinion that all of the examples from Imai that
`
`the Pet