IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`James J. Fallon et al.
`In re Patent of:
`8,934,535 Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`U.S. Patent No.:
`January 13, 2015
`
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 4/033,245
`
`Filing Date:
`September 20, 2013
`
`Title:
`SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR VIDEO AND AUDIO
`DATA STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR SCOTT T. ACTON, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: ______July 3, 2018______
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: _________________________
`
`
`Scott T. Acton
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ...................................................................... 2 
`EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND .......................... 2 
`A.  Education and Work Experience ........................................................... 2 
`B.  Compensation ........................................................................................ 7 
`C.  Materials Reviewed ............................................................................... 8 
`STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ............................................. 11 
`A.  Claim Construction ............................................................................. 11 
`B.  Anticipation ......................................................................................... 12 
`C.  Obviousness ......................................................................................... 12 
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................. 13 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................... 15 
`A.  Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of “Data Block” ......................... 15 
`B.  Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of “Parameter” ........................... 16 
`C.  Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of “Asymmetric Compressors” or
`“Asymmetric Data Compression” ....................................................... 16 
`D.  Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of “Access Profile” .................... 16 
`VII.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’535 PATENT ..................................................... 17 
`VIII.  TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW ................................................................ 22 
`A.  Historical Overview of Data Compression ......................................... 22 
`B.  The MPEG Standard ........................................................................... 24 
`C.  Use of Profiles in Compression ........................................................... 32 
`OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES ........................... 33 
`A.  Dvir Overview ..................................................................................... 33 
`B. 
`Ishii Overview ..................................................................................... 39 
`UNPATENTABILITY OF THE ’535 PATENT CLAIMS ................... 42 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 14 of the ’535 Patent are anticipated
`by Dvir under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................ 42 
`i.  Claim 1 is anticipated by Dvir under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................ 42 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`VI. 
`
`IX. 
`
`X. 
`
` i
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 2
`
`

`

`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`ii.  Claim 2 is anticipated by Dvir under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................ 57 
`iii.  Claim 9 is anticipated by Dvir under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................ 59 
`iv.  Claim 10 is anticipated by Dvir under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .............. 61 
`v.  Claim 14 is anticipated by Dvir under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .............. 64 
`B.  Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 14 of the ’535 Patent are obvious
`over Dvir under 35 U.S.C. § 103......................................................... 69 
`C.  Ground 3: Claims 3-6, 8, 11, and 12 of the ’535 Patent are obvious
`over Dvir in view of Ishii under 35 U.S.C. § 103. .............................. 72 
`i.  Reason to combine Dvir and Ishii ............................................... 72 
`ii.  Claim 3 is rendered obvious over Dvir in view of Ishii under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................ 83 
`iii.  Claim 4 is obvious over Dvir in view of Ishii under 35 U.S.C. §
`103 ............................................................................................... 86 
`iv.  Claim 5 is rendered obvious over Dvir in view of Ishii under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................ 89 
`v.  Claim 6 is rendered obvious over Dvir in view of Ishii under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................ 91 
`vi.  Claim 8 is rendered obvious over Dvir in view of Ishii under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................ 92 
`vii.  Claim 11 is rendered obvious over Dvir in view of Ishii under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................ 98 
`viii.  Claim 12 is rendered obvious over Dvir in view of Ishii under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................ 99 
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................101 
`
`
`
`XI. 
`
` ii
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`Appendix A
`
`Appendix B
`
`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`LIST OF APPENDICES
`
`CV of Professor Scott Action
`
`Professor Scott Acton’s List of Engagements in Last Five Years
`
` iii
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 4
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I, Scott T. Acton, of Charlottesville, VA, being over the age of 18 and
`
`competent to make the statements herein, hereby declare the following:
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media
`
`L.L.C., DISH Network L.L.C., and DISH Technologies L.L.C. (collectively
`
`“DISH”). I understand that DISH is the Petitioner in an Inter Partes Review before
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,934,535 (“the ’535 Patent”) (DISH1001).
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to opine on the subject of the validity of the claims
`
`of the ’535 Patent and such other topics as addressed in this report.
`
`4.
`
`I have prepared this declaration summarizing certain of my opinions
`
`regarding this subject matter and its relevance to the validity of the ’535 Patent.
`
`5.
`
`If called upon to do so, I am prepared to testify as an expert witness in
`
`this regard.
`
`6.
`
`This declaration is based on information currently available to me. To
`
`the extent that additional information becomes available, I reserve the right to
`
`continue my investigation and study, which may include a review of documents
`
`and information that may be produced, as well as testimony from depositions that
`
`have not yet been taken.
`
` 1
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 5
`
`

`

`
`II.
`
`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`7.
`This Declaration explains the conclusions that I have formed based on
`
`my independent analysis. The challenged claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14 of the ’535
`
`Patent describe a method for selecting a compression algorithm suited to store,
`
`retrieve, or management data in devices that utilize compression. As discussed
`
`below in more detail, methods and systems with this capability were well-known in
`
`the art before the ’535 Patent’s priority date. None of the features described in
`
`claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14 was novel as of the earliest priority date, nor does the ’535
`
`Patent teach a novel and non-obvious way of combining these known features.
`
`8.
`
`It is my opinion that each of claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 14 of the ’535
`
`Patent is anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,557,001 (“Dvir”) (DISH1004).
`
`9.
`
`In addition, it is my opinion that each of claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 14 of
`
`the ’535 Patent is obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,557,001 (“Dvir”) (DISH1004).
`
`10.
`
`It is further my opinion that each of claims 3-6, 8, 11, and 12 of the
`
`’535 Patent are obvious over Dvir in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,675,789 (“Ishii”)
`
`(DISH1005).
`
`III. EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND
`A. Education and Work Experience
`11.
`I am currently a Professor at the University of Virginia in the
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering in the School of Engineering
`
` 2
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 6
`
`

`

`
`and Applied Science. I am an expert in the field of signal, image and video
`
`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`processing. I have studied, researched, and practiced in the field of electrical and
`
`computer engineering for more than thirty years, and have taught courses in the
`
`field of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Virginia since
`
`2000. My qualifications for formulating my analysis on this matter are
`
`summarized here and are addressed more fully in my curriculum vitae, which is
`
`attached as Appendix A.
`
`12.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering from
`
`Virginia Tech in 1988. In 1990, I received my Masters of Science degree in
`
`electrical engineering from The University of Texas at Austin. I completed my
`
`Doctorate at The University of Texas at Austin in 1993 with the publication of my
`
`dissertation on solving optimization problems in image and video processing.
`
`13.
`
`I began my work in the area of signal, image and video processing as
`
`an Engineering Intern for AT&T Corp. (1982-1984) and The MITRE Corp. (1985-
`
`1987), and later worked as a member of the technical staff at MITRE (1988).
`
`While pursuing my Masters and Ph.D., I conducted research as a Microelectronics
`
`and Computer Development Fellow at The University of Texas at Austin (1988-
`
`1990), served as a Research and Development Intern for Motorola, Inc. (1991), and
`
`held a Research Assistant position at The Laboratory for Vision Systems at The
`
`University of Texas at Austin under a research grant from Motorola (1990-1993).
`
` 3
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 7
`
`

`

`
`After completing my Ph.D., I spent a year studying as a Postdoctoral Fellow at the
`
`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`Center for Space Research in Austin, Texas (1994).
`
`14. From 1994 to 2000, I taught at Oklahoma State University as an
`
`Assistant Professor (1994-1997) and Associate Professor (1997-2000). While at
`
`Oklahoma State University, I directed the Oklahoma Imaging Laboratory, where
`
`we conducted research in the fields of digital media processing and digital image
`
`and video cameras. In 2000, I became an Associate Professor at the University of
`
`Virginia in the C.L. Brown Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering in
`
`the School of Engineering and Applied Science. From 2003 to 2005, I was a
`
`Walter N. Munster Associate Professor and Faculty Fellow (tenured), and in 2005
`
`earned the rank of Full Professor at the University of Virginia, where I continue to
`
`work. I have also held a joint appointment in the Department of Biomedical
`
`Engineering at the University of Virginia since 2002.
`
`15. Throughout my education and career, a period of over thirty years, I
`
`have also worked in basic and applied research. My primary research
`
`concentrations are in the areas of signal, image and video processing, with specific
`
`concentrations in image and video representations, image and video analysis, and
`
`computer software development, amongst others. My research projects funded by
`
`industry and government utilize the latest image/video storage, retrieval and
`
`management techniques. I was the architect of one the earliest image databases
`
` 4
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 8
`
`

`

`
`with content based image retrieval and storage capabilities, funded by the National
`
`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`Science Foundation.
`
`16. My research in these areas has resulted in over 290 refereed journal
`
`and conference papers to date. I have also co-authored two books on image
`
`analysis, have authored or co-authored nine book chapters relating to image and
`
`video processing, and have presented at over 60 invited lectures throughout my
`
`career. A complete list of my publications and presentations, including those over
`
`the past ten years, is set forth in Appendix A.
`
`17. Funding for my research has come from a variety of sources over the
`
`years, including federal agencies and commercial companies. Specific funding
`
`agencies include the Army Research Office, the Defense Advanced Research
`
`Projects Agency (DARPA), the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department
`
`of Transportation, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National
`
`Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Private companies providing
`
`funding have included Motorola, Lucent Technologies, Inc., PocketSonics, Inc.,
`
`and CACI, Inc.
`
`18.
`
`I was also a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) from 1999-2012, and in 2013 was named an IEEE
`
`Fellow for my work in image and signal processing, a distinction that is granted to
`
`only one of every 1,000 members of the IEEE.
`
` 5
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`19. During my career as a professor, I have taught a number of
`
`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`undergraduate and graduate courses relating to signal, image and video processing.
`
`Exemplary courses include Computer Architecture, Digital Logic Design, Signals
`
`and Systems, Digital Signal Processing, Image Processing, Computer Vision,
`
`Random Processes, Multimedia and the Science of Information, a course designed
`
`as an introduction to information technology. I am also the designer of the course
`
`called “How the iPhone Works.”
`
`20.
`
`In addition to teaching, I have supervised the thesis work of over 15
`
`doctoral students and approximately 60 masters and undergraduate students, and
`
`hosted 7 visiting professors and postdoctoral fellows.
`
`21.
`
`In service to the technical community, I have also served as the
`
`Editor-In-Chief of IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (2014-2018), as an
`
`Associate Editor for IEEE Signal Processing Letters (2001-2004), and as a guest
`
`editor for the IEEE Journal on Special Topics in Signal Processing (2014-2015)
`
`and the Multimedia Systems Journal (2005). I have also reviewed publications for
`
`over 20 academic journals. Beyond my work with peer-reviewed journals, I have
`
`organized or led about 25 conferences on image and signal processing, and
`
`participated in over 50 conference committees.
`
`22.
`
`I have also worked as a consultant to industry on a number of
`
`occasions. During the 1990s, I was an image processing consultant to Datacube,
`
` 6
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 10
`
`

`

`
`Inc. working on their commercial products, including real-time video tracking
`
`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`systems. I also worked with Platinum Solutions and Barron and Associates on
`
`various projects related to image and signal processing implemented in
`
`government and industry systems.
`
`23. More details on my education and work experience, as well as a list of
`
`all major publications (numbering over 290) that I have authored or co-authored,
`
`are contained in my CV, attached to this Declaration as Appendix A. A list of my
`
`expert witness engagements in the last five years is attached to this Declaration as
`
`Appendix B.
`
`B. Compensation
`24. For my study and testimony in this case, I am being compensated at a
`
`rate of $425 per hour, plus reimbursement for usual business expenses, which is
`
`my standard and customary practice. My compensation is in no way dependent on
`
`the results of these or any other proceedings relating to the above-captioned patent.
`
`25.
`
`I am not, and never have been, an employee of DISH. I have been
`
`engaged in the present matter to provide my independent analysis of the issues
`
`raised in the petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’535 Patent. I received no
`
`compensation for this declaration beyond my normal hourly compensation of $425
`
`per hour based on my time actually spent studying the matter, and I will not
`
` 7
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 11
`
`

`

`
`receive any added compensation based on the outcome of this Inter Partes Review
`
`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`of the ’535 Patent.
`
`C. Materials Reviewed
`26. As part of my independent analysis for this declaration, I have
`
`considered the following: my own knowledge and experience, including my own
`
`work and research experience in the fields of signal, image and video processing,
`
`my participation in professional organizations and conferences in those fields; and
`
`my experience in working with others in the relevant technical areas.
`
`27.
`
`In addition, I have analyzed the following materials (see also
`
`Appendix B): the disclosure and claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 (“the ’535
`
`Patent”; DISH1001); the File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 (DISH1002);
`
`the disclosure and claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,557,001 (“Dvir”) (DISH1004); the
`
`disclosure and claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,675,789 (“Ishii”) (DISH1005); the
`
`disclosure and claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,216,157 (“Vishwanath”) (DISH1006);
`
`the File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,867,610 (DISH1007); the disclosure and
`
`claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,195,024 to Fallon (“the ’024 Patent”) (DISH1008);
`
`relevant documents from the litigation Realtime Data LLC v. Rackspace US, Inc. et
`
`al., Dkt. No. 183, Case No. 6-16-cv-00961 (E.D. Tex. June 29, 2016) (DISH1009);
`
`relevant documents from the litigation Realtime Data LLC v. Actian Corporation
`
`et al., Dkt. No. 362, Case No. 6-15-cv-00463 (E.D. Tex. May 8, 2015)
`
` 8
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 12
`
`

`

`
`(DISH1010); Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions for U.S. Patent No.
`
`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`8,934,535 from Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV L.L.C. et al., Case
`
`No. 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ (DISH1011); relevant documents from the litigation
`
`Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO v. Packeteer, Inc., et al., No. 6:08-cv-00144 Docket
`
`No. 371, p. 59 (E.D. Tex. June 22, 2009) (DISH1012); the disclosure of Held, G.
`
`Data Compression: Techniques and Applications, Hardware and Software
`
`Considerations, John Wiley & Sons, 1983 (DISH1013); the disclosure of Fahie,
`
`John Jacob (1884). A History of Electric Telegraphy, to the Year 1837. E. & F.N.
`
`Spon. (DISH1014); the disclosure of Mag, Lond Mechanics. “Mr. Bain's Electric
`
`Printing Telegraph.” Journal of the Franklin Institute, of the State of Pennsylvania,
`
`for the Promotion of the Mechanic Arts; Devoted to Mechanical and Physical
`
`Science, Civil Engineering, the Arts and Manufactures, and the Recording of
`
`American and Other Patent Inventions (1828-1851) 8.1 (1844): 61 (DISH1015);
`
`the disclosure of Huffman, D. A. (1952). A method for the construction of
`
`minimum-redundancy codes. Proceedings of the IRE, 40(9), 1098-1101
`
`(DISH1016); the disclosure of Shannon, C. E. (1949). Communication theory of
`
`secrecy systems. Bell Labs Technical Journal, 28(4), 656-715 (DISH1017); the
`
`disclosure of Tekalp, A. M. (1995). Digital video processing. Prentice Hall Press
`
`(DISH1018); the disclosure of Bovik, Alan C. Handbook of image and video
`
`processing. Academic press, 2009 (DISH1019); the disclosure of Jim Taylor, DVD
`
` 9
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 13
`
`

`

`
`Demystified (1998) (DISH1020); the disclosure of Zhang, Z. L., Wang, Y., Du, D.
`
`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`H. C., & Su, D. (2000). Video staging: A proxy-server-based approach to end-to-
`
`end video delivery over wide-area networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on
`
`networking, 8(4), 429-442 (DISH1021); the disclosure of ISO/IEC 11172-2: 1993
`
`(DISH1022); the disclosure of ISO/IEC 13818-2: 1995 (DISH1023); the disclosure
`
`of Gringeri et al., Traffic Shaping, Bandwidth Allocation, and Quality Assessment
`
`for MPEG Video Distribution over Broadband Networks, IEEE Network,
`
`(November/December 1998) (DISH1024); and the disclosure and claims of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,020,904 (“Clark”) (DISH1025).
`
`28.
`
`I have also considered other background references, of which I had
`
`been previously aware, not cited herein directly that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of invention (“POSITA” or “one of ordinary skill in the art”)
`
`would have recognized as being related to the subject matter of the ’535 Patent.
`
`29. Although this Declaration refers to and cites to selected portions of
`
`the cited references for the sake of brevity, it should be understood that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the references cited herein in their
`
`entirety and in combination with other references cited herein or cited within the
`
`references themselves. The references used in this Declaration, therefore, should
`
`be viewed as being incorporated herein in their entirety.
`
` 10
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 14
`
`

`

`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Claim Construction
`30.
`I understand that, for purposes of my analysis in this Inter Partes
`
`Review proceeding, the terms appearing in the claims of the ’535 Patent should be
`
`interpreted according to their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In that
`
`regard, I understand that the best indicator of claim meaning is usage of the claim
`
`language in the context of the patent specification as understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
`31.
`
`I further understand that the words of the claims should be given their
`
`plain meaning unless that meaning is inconsistent with the patent specification or
`
`the patent’s history of examination before the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“Patent Office”). I also understand that the words of the claims should be
`
`interpreted as they would by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made. I have used the February 13, 2001 filing date of the ʼ394
`
`Application as the point in time for claim interpretation purposes (“Critical Date”),
`
`because this is earliest the date to which the ’535 Patent claims priority and
`
`because I do not know at what earlier date, if any, the invention as claimed was
`
`made.
`
` 11
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`B. Anticipation
`32.
`I understand that for a patent claim to be valid, the claimed invention
`
`must be novel. It is also my understanding that if each and every element of a
`
`claim is disclosed in a single prior art reference, then the claimed invention is
`
`anticipated, and the invention is not patentable according to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102 effective before March 16, 2013. In order for the invention to be anticipated,
`
`each element of the claimed invention must be described or embodied, either
`
`expressly or inherently, in the single prior art reference. In order for a reference to
`
`inherently disclose a claim limitation, that claim limitation must necessarily be
`
`present in the reference. I further understand that a prior art reference must be
`
`enabling in order to anticipate a patent claim.
`
`C. Obviousness
`33.
`I understand that obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`effective before March 16, 2013 is a basis for invalidity. Specifically, I understand
`
`that where a prior art reference discloses less than all of the limitations of a given
`
`patent claim, that patent claim is invalid if the differences between the claimed
`
`subject matter and the prior art reference are such that the claimed subject matter
`
`as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the relevant art. Obviousness can be based on a
`
` 12
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 16
`
`

`

`
`single prior art reference or a combination of references that either expressly or
`
`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`inherently disclose all limitations of the claimed invention.
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`34.
`I understand that the claims and specification of a patent must be read
`
`and construed through the eyes of a POSITA at the time of the priority date of the
`
`claims. I have also been advised that to determine the appropriate level of a
`
`POSITA, the following factors may be considered: (a) the types of problems
`
`encountered by those working in the field and prior art solutions thereto; (b) the
`
`sophistication of the technology in question, and the rapidity with which
`
`innovations occur in the field; (c) the educational level of active workers in the
`
`field; and (d) the educational level of the inventor.
`
`35. The “challenge” perceived by the ’535 Patent, as described in the
`
`“Description of the Related Art” section, is selecting the optimal data compression
`
`algorithm from the variety of available algorithms given the requirements of the
`
`particular application at issue (See DISH1001, 1:30-55). Thus, the ’535 Patent
`
`does not purport to provide novel compression methods. Rather, the technology of
`
`the ’535 Patent merely focuses on a system that “select[s] a suitable compression
`
`algorithm based on the data type” of data to be compressed. DISH1001, 11:30-40.
`
`It is the method for performing this selection that the ’535 Patent purports to be
`
`novel.
`
` 13
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 17
`
`

`

`
`
`36. The problem and proposed solution identified in the ’535 Patent are
`
`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`related to the fields of data compression, processing, transmission, and storage.
`
`Therefore, a POSITA would need education and work experience in these fields.
`
`37. Based on the above considerations and factors, as well as my
`
`experience in this area, it is my opinion that POSITA would have at least a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer
`
`science, or the equivalent, and two to three years of work experience with data
`
`compression, storage, retrieval, processing, and transmission, or the equivalent.
`
`38. Based on my knowledge and experience, I have a good understanding
`
`of the capabilities of a POSITA, and I possess the capabilities of a POSITA
`
`myself. Indeed, I have worked with, supervised, participated in organizations with,
`
`and presented to a number of such persons over the course of my career.
`
`39. Further, based on my knowledge and experience, there existed
`
`numerous publications, and patents that implemented or described the subject
`
`matter the ’535 Patent prior to the earliest effective date of the ’535 Patent, which
`
`as described below is assumed to be February 13, 2001 for purposes of my analysis
`
`here. Indeed, based on my review of the prior art publications listed above, a
`
`POSITA, at the time the ’394 Application was filed, would have recognized that
`
`the subject matter described in the ’535 Patent was well-known in the prior art.
`
`Specifically, a POSITA at the time would have fully appreciated that different
`
` 14
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 18
`
`

`

`
`compression algorithms were better suited for different types of data, and naturally
`
`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`would have designed systems that selected compression algorithms based on these
`
`considerations (e.g., based on the type of data being compressed). Furthermore, to
`
`the extent there was any problem to be solved in the ’535 Patent, a POSITA at the
`
`time would have known that the problem described above had already been solved
`
`in prior art systems, patents, and other printed publications appearing before the
`
`Critical Date of the ’535 Patent.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`40.
`In conducting my analysis of the asserted claims of the ’535 Patent, I
`
`have applied the following specific claim construction.
`
`A. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of “Data Block”
`41.
`It is my understanding that DISH proposes, for purposes of this
`
`proceeding, that a POSITA prior to the Critical Date would have understood the
`
`BRI of the term “data block” to be “a single unit of data, which may range in size
`
`from individual bits through complete files or collection of multiple files.”
`
`Therefore, for purposes of my analysis herein, I understand the term “data block”
`
`to include “at least a single unit of data, which may range in size from individual
`
`bits through complete files or collection of multiple files.”
`
` 15
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 19
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`B. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of “Parameter”
`42.
`It is my understanding that DISH proposes, for purposes of this
`
`proceeding, that a POSITA prior to the Critical Date would have understood the
`
`BRI of the term “parameter” to be “any recognizable data token or descriptor.”
`
`Therefore, for purposes of my analysis herein, I understand the term “parameter”
`
`to include “any recognizable data token or descriptor.”
`
`C. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of “Asymmetric Compressors”
`or “Asymmetric Data Compression”
`It is my understanding that DISH proposes, for purposes of this
`
`43.
`
`proceeding, that a POSITA prior to the Critical Date would have understood the
`
`BRI of the terms “asymmetric compressors” or “asymmetric data compression” to
`
`be “an algorithm where compression of data and decompression of that
`
`compressed data take different amounts of time.” Therefore, for purposes of my
`
`analysis herein, I understand the terms “asymmetric compressors” or “asymmetric
`
`data compression” to include “an algorithm where compression of data and
`
`decompression of that compressed data take different amounts of time.”
`
`D. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of “Access Profile”
`44.
`It is my understanding that DISH proposes, for purposes of this
`
`proceeding, that a POSITA prior to the Critical Date would have understood the
`
`BRI of the term “access profile” to be “information that enables a controller to
`
`determine a compression routine that is associated with a data type of the data to be
`
` 16
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 20
`
`

`

`
`compressed.” Therefore, for purposes of my analysis herein, I understand the term
`
`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`“access profile” to include “information that enables a controller to determine a
`
`compression routine that is associated with a data type of the data to be
`
`compressed.”
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’535 PATENT
`45. The ’535 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 14/033,245, which
`
`is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/154,239, filed on June 6, 2011,
`
`now U.S. Pat. No. 8,553,759, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 12/123,081, filed on May 19, 2008, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,073,047, which is a
`
`continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/076,013, filed on February 13,
`
`2002, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,386,046, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional
`
`Application No. 60/268,394, (“the ’394 Application”) filed on Feb. 13, 2001.
`
`46. The technology of the ’535 Patent at issue generally concerns the
`
`effectiveness of certain data compression algorithms on certain types of data and
`
`selecting algorithms “based on their ability to effectively encode different types of
`
`input data.” DISH1001, 5:14-55. In particular, the ’535 Patent discloses
`
`technology for “storage, retrieval, and management of information in data storage
`
`devices utilizing either compression and/or accelerated data storage and retrieval
`
`bandwidth” with the goal of providing “the greatest possible compression,
`
`preferably in real-time, regardless of the data content.” DISH1001, 1:27-30. In
`
` 17
`
`Comcast - Exhibit 1003, page 21
`
`

`

`
`doing so, the ’535 Patent acknowledged that appropriate data compression should
`
`Patent No.: 8,934,535
`Attorney Docket No.: 45035-0002IP4
`
`consider not only available storage capacity (i.e., since higher compression ratios
`
`result in smaller compressed data sizes, thereby resulting in greater storage
`
`capacity), but also data read/write times (i.e., bec