`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2019-01035
`Patent 9,769,477
`____________________
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KENNETH A. ZEGER, PH.D., IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`
`I.
`
`Table of Contents
`Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
`A. Engagement .............................................................................................. 1
`B. Background and Qualifications ............................................................... 1
`II. Materials Considered ................................................................................... 5
`III. Relevant Legal Standards ............................................................................ 6
`A. Burden of Proof ........................................................................................ 6
`B. Claim Construction .................................................................................. 6
`C. Anticipation .............................................................................................. 7
`D. Obviousness .............................................................................................. 8
`IV. Person of Skill in The Art ............................................................................ 9
`V. The ’447 Patent (Ex. 1001) ......................................................................... 11
`VI. Claim Construction .................................................................................... 17
`A. “throughput” .......................................................................................... 17
`VII. Overview of Prior Art ............................................................................ 18
`A. Overview of Brooks Reference (Ex. 1006) ............................................. 18
`B. Overview of the ’468 Application (Ex. 1007)......................................... 20
`VIII. Limitation 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”................. 21
`A. The requirements of Limitation 1[b]. .................................................... 21
`B. Brooks does not disclose a first encoder configured to compress data at
`a higher compression rate than a second encoder. ....................................... 24
`1. Brooks’ general references to MPEG-class compression standards
`do not disclose different “compression rates” between encoders or
`algorithms. .................................................................................................. 26
`2. The ’468 Application does not expressly disclose different encoders
`that compress at different compression rates. .......................................... 34
`
`
`
`i
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`
`C. A POSITA would not understand that Brooks expressly or inherently
`discloses Limitation 1[b] ................................................................................ 37
`IX. Limitation 20[c] “wherein at least one of the plurality of video data
`compression encoders is configured to utilize an arithmetic data compression
`algorithm”........................................................................................................... 38
`X. Claims 3, 4, 7, 9, 16, and 17 Are Not Proven to Be Invalid ...................... 46
`XI. Claims 21 and 22 Are Not Proven to Be Invalid ....................................... 46
`XII. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 47
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`2007
`Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger, Ph.D., in Support of Patent
`Owner’s Response
`Transcript of February 18, 2020 Deposition of Dr. Jeffrey J.
`Rodriguez
`ITU-T Rec. H.262 (1995 E) (Information Technology – Generic
`Coding of Moving Pictures and Associated Audio Information)
`ITU-T Rec. H.263 (03/96) (Video Coding for Low Bit Rate
`Communication)
`Cote et al., H.263+: Video Coding at Low Bit Rates (IEEE
`Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, Vol.
`8, No. 7, November 1998)
`Wiegand & Marpe, Context-Based Adaptive Binary Arithmetic
`Coding in the H.264/AVC Video Compression Standard (IEEE
`Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology,
`2003)
`
`2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR 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 IPR2019-
`
`01035 (“Petition” or “Pet.”) as to U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477 (“’477 patent,” Exhibit
`
`1001). I have no interest in the outcome of this proceeding and my compensation 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 Petition and the
`
`supporting declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez (“Rodriguez Declaration” or
`
`“Rodriguez Decl.” Ex. 1002) with respect to the challenged claims of the ’477
`
`patent.
`
`
`
`The statements made herein are based on my own knowledge and
`
`opinions.
`
`B.
`
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`I have studied, taught, and practiced electrical and computer
`
`engineering for thirty-nine years. I attended the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`
`
`1
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 5
`
`

`

`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`Technology (“MIT”) and earned a Bachelors (SB) and Masters (SM) of Science
`
`
`
`Degrees in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1984. I earned a Master
`
`of Arts (MA) Degree in Mathematics in 1989 from the University of California,
`
`Santa Barbara. I also earned my Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from
`
`the University of California, Santa Barbara 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
`
`22 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.
`
` 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,
`
`
`
`2
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 6
`
`

`

`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`digital communications, information theory, computer software, and mathematical
`
`
`
`analyses.
`
`
`
`I have authored 77 peer-reviewed journal articles, the majority of which
`
`are on the topic of compression or information theory. I have also authored over 110
`
`papers at various conferences and symposia over the past thirty 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
`
`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
`
`
`
`3
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`$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.
`
` My curriculum vitae, attached to this declaration as Appendix A,
`
`(“Zeger Curriculum Vitae”), lists my publication record in archival journals,
`
`international conferences, and workshops.
`
`4
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`
`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 my
`
`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. Unless otherwise noted, my
`
`opinions set forth herein do not rest on a disagreement with Dr. Rodriguez 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 Preliminary Response, and the Board’s Decision to Institute
`
`in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`I have reviewed the Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Rodriguez. I have also
`
`reviewed the Brooks reference (Ex. 1006) and Brooks provisional application (Ex.
`
`1007) submitted by Petitioner in this proceeding, as well as other references, and
`
`am familiar with those references. In addition, I have reviewed Dr. Rodriguez’s
`
`deposition testimony in this proceeding (“Rodriguez Deposition” or “Rodriguez
`
`Dep.,” Ex. 2008). I have also reviewed the prosecution history of the ’477 patent.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
` 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. 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.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`I understand that in certain inter partes review proceedings the Board
`
`applies a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) claim construction standard to
`
`claims in an unexpired patent. I understand that the PTO set forth a new final rule
`
`published October 11, 2018 changing the claim construction standard in IPRs from
`
`BRI to plain and ordinary meaning, and that this “rule is effective on November 13,
`
`2018 and applies to all IPR, PGR, and CBM petitions filed on or after the effective
`
`date.” Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial
`
`
`
`6
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 10
`
`

`

`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct.
`
`
`
`11, 2018) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42).
`
` This Petition was filed on May 6, 2019, and so I understand that the
`
`Board will apply the “plain and ordinary meaning” standard to claim construction in
`
`this proceeding. I understand that the plain and ordinary meaning of a claim term is
`
`the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`question at the time of the invention when read in view of the patent claims and the
`
`specification.
`
`
`
`I understand that the Board does not construe claim terms unnecessary
`
`to resolving the controversy.
`
`C. Anticipation
`
`It is my understanding that invalidation by “anticipation” only exists if
`
`a single alleged prior art reference discloses each and every limitation of the claim
`
`at issue, either expressly or inherently. In other words, every limitation of the claim
`
`must appear in a single prior art reference for the reference to anticipate that claim.
`
`I also understand that all limitations of the claim must be disclosed in the reference
`
`as they are arranged in the claim. I also understand that anticipation by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence requires a showing that a person could make and use
`
`the claimed invention by looking at one reference. A requirement of a claim that is
`
`missing from a prior art reference may be disclosed inherently if that missing
`
`
`
`7
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 11
`
`

`

`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`requirement is necessarily present in the prior art. I also understand that to be
`
`
`
`considered anticipatory, the prior art reference must be enabling and must describe
`
`the patentee’s claimed invention sufficiently to have placed it in the possession of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the field of invention.
`
`D. Obviousness
`
`I understand that a claim of a patent may not be novel even though the
`
`invention is not identically disclosed or described in the prior art so long as 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.
`
`
`
`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,
`
`
`
`8
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 12
`
`

`

`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`the petition must show why and how a person of ordinary skill would have combined
`
`
`
`them.
`
`
`
`I understand that, to demonstrate obviousness, a petition must
`
`accurately identify and analyze the differences between the claimed invention and
`
`the prior art.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`IV. Person of Skill in The Art
`
`
`I am familiar with the concept of the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) and have reviewed Dr. Rodriguez’s and Petitioner’s statement on the
`
`definition and qualifications of the POSITA for purposes of this proceeding. Dr.
`
`Rodriguez states that a “person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of the ’477 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering, computer science, or the equivalent, and three or more years of
`
`experience with data compression systems and algorithms, including video and
`
`image coding.” Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 16.
`
`
`
`In my opinion, based on my understanding of the state of the art at the
`
`time of the priority date of the ’477 patent as well as my familiarity with the field of
`
`data compression at the time, a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention
`
`
`
`9
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 13
`
`

`

`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or
`
`
`
`a similar field with at least two years of experience in data compression” or that such
`
`a person would have had “a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`science, or a similar filed with a specialization in data compression.” This is the same
`
`level of skill that the experts and the Board adopted in another IPR on the ’477
`
`patent. See IPR2018-01187, Paper 39 at 12.
`
` This is generally consistent with Dr. Rodriguez’s opinion for the level
`
`of skill, except he describes a person of ordinary skill has having “three or more
`
`years of experience with data compression systems and algorithms, including video
`
`and image coding.” I disagree that a POSITA would need three years of experience
`
`and would necessarily have experience with video and image coding.
`
`
`
`I note that other experts who have submitted declarations in support of
`
`petitioners in inter partes review proceedings concerning the ’477 patent have
`
`offered similar opinions to mine concerning the level of skill. I have been involved
`
`in IPR2018-01187 and IPR2018-01630, for example, in which Dr. James Storer
`
`opined on behalf of the petitioners that a POSITA in the context of the ’477 patent
`
`would have had “at least two years of experience in data compression.” Likewise, I
`
`understand that Dr. Chandrajit Bajaj provided a declaration in IPR2018-01413 that
`
`also opined that a POSITA in the context of the ’477 patent would have had “two or
`
`
`
`10
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 14
`
`

`

`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`more years of experience … in analysis, design, or development related to media
`
`
`
`compression.”1
`
`
`
`I further note that I am at least a POSITA and that I have taught students
`
`and worked with colleagues who are POSITAs. Thus, I am qualified to give technical
`
`opinions from the perspective of a POSITA.
`
` Throughout my declaration, even if I discuss my analysis in the present
`
`tense, I am always making my determinations based on what a POSITA would have
`
`known at the time of the invention, which is February 2001.
`
`V. The ’447 Patent (Ex. 1001)
` The ’447 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 and a technique of optimizing based upon
`
`planned, expected, predicted, or actual usage.” Ex. 1001, 7:66-8:3, Summary of the
`
`Invention. For example, the patent solves bottlenecks in the throughput of a system
`
`by selecting different compression routines based on the throughput of the system to
`
`compress data before transmission. Id. at 9:58–67. Fig. 1 shows one embodiment:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 To confirm, I reference the declarations of Dr. Storer and Dr. Bajaj in those
`respective inter partes review proceedings which contain their opinions regarding,
`among other things, the level of ordinary skill.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In another embodiment, the controller 11 uses information comprising
`
`a plurality of data profiles 15 to determine which compression algorithms 13 should
`
`be used by the data compression system 12. Id. at 11:9–12. The compression
`
`algorithms 13 comprise one or more “asymmetric algorithms.” Id. at 11:12–20.
`
` Another embodiment of the ’477 patent is shown in Figure 2,
`
`reproduced here:
`
`
`
`12
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`
`
`
` Figure 2 illustrates a method for providing bandwidth sensitive data
`
`compression. Ex. 1001, at 13:25-27. The data compression system is initialized
`
`during a boot-up process after a computer is powered on and a default
`
`compression/decompression routine is initiated. Id. at 13:31-34. The default
`
`algorithm is asymmetric, and such asymmetric algorithms provide a “high
`
`
`
`13
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 17
`
`

`

`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`compression ratio (to effectively increase the storage capacity of the hard disk) and
`
`
`
`fast data access (to effectively increase the retrieval rate from the hard disk).” Id. at
`
`13:35-45. See also Paper 39, IPR2018-01187.
`
` The ’477 patent further states that it is “preferable to utilize an
`
`asymmetrical algorithm that provides a slow compression routine and a fast
`
`decompression routine so as to provide an increase in the overall system
`
`performance as compared to performance that would be obtained using a
`
`symmetrical algorithm.” Id. at 12:23-28. Symmetrical routines referenced in the
`
`’477 patent include, for example, “arithmetic coding,” “dictionary compression,
`
`Huffman coding, and run-length coding.” Id. at 5:11-14. In one embodiment, the
`
`’477 patent discloses a controller which “tracks and monitors the throughput … of
`
`the data compression system 12.” Id. at 10:54-57. When the throughput falls below
`
`a “predetermined
`
`threshold,”
`
`the controller “generates control signals
`
`to
`
`enable/disable different compression algorithms 13.” Id. at 10:55-58.
`
`
`
`In discussing Claim 1, I will refer to its limitations as they are labeled
`
`here:
`
`1[pre] A system, comprising:
`
`1[a] a plurality of different asymmetric data compression encoders,
`wherein each asymmetric data compression encoder of the plurality of
`
`
`
`14
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`
`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
`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.
`
` Challenged claims 3, 4, 7, 9, 16, and 17 all depend directly or indirectly
`
`from independent claim 1. For example, dependent claim 3 recites: “The system of
`
`claim 1, wherein the throughput of the communications channel comprises: an
`
`estimated throughput of the communications channel.”
`
`
`
`Independent claim 20 includes a limitation regarding an arithmetic data
`
`compression algorithm and other differences. In discussing Claim 20, I will refer to
`
`its limitations as they are labeled here:
`
`
`
`15
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 19
`
`

`

`
`
`20[pre] A system comprising;
`
`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`
`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.
`
` Claims 21 and 22 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim
`
`20. For example, dependent claim 21 recites: “The system of claim 20, wherein the
`
`throughput of the communications channel comprises: an estimated or expected
`
`throughput of the communications channel.”
`
`
`
`16
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 20
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`
`VI. Claim Construction
`A.
`“throughput”
` The Board preliminarily construed “throughput” to mean “bandwidth
`
`(i.e., amount of data unit per time).” Institution Decision at 20. I do not believe this
`
`term requires construction because of the disputes at issue in this IPR. But if the
`
`Board is inclined to adopt this construction, I would like to make some observations
`
`about the term “bandwidth.”
`
` The word “bandwidth” is used in several different ways by POSITAs.
`
`The three most common usages of “bandwidth,” in my experience, are: (1) the
`
`difference between the largest and smallest frequencies in a band of spectrum, i.e.,
`
`the width of the frequency band (for example, “AM radio stations use 10 KHz
`
`bandwidths.”); and (2) the capacity of a communications channel, measured in bits
`
`per second, i.e., the maximum amount (i.e. an upper bound) of data that could
`
`potentially be transmitted across the channel. For example: “Some fiber optic
`
`internet connections have bandwidths up to 10 Gigabits per second.” And (3)
`
`bandwidth may also be used to refer to the amount of data flowing through a data
`
`channel, which is constricted by the capacity of the channel.
`
` The Abstract of the ’477 patent uses the phrase “throughput
`
`(bandwidth).” The ’477 patent uses the term “throughput” to mean the third type of
`
`“bandwidth” described above: that is, “throughput” in the ’477 patent refers to the
`
`
`
`17
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 21
`
`

`

`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`amount of data flowing through a data channel. The ’477 patent states, for example:
`
`
`
`“In a preferred embodiment, when the controller determines that the system
`
`throughput falls below a predetermined throughput threshold, the controller
`
`commands the data compression engine to use a compression routine providing a
`
`faster rate of compression so as to increase the throughput.” ’477 patent, at 8:13-18.
`
`“Throughput of a communications channel” in the context of the ’477 patent does
`
`not necessarily refer to the capacity of a given channel, which does not vary. See
`
`’477 patent, at 8:48-51 (“tracking the throughput of the data processing system to
`
`determine if the first compression rate provides a throughput that meets a
`
`predetermined throughput threshold”); 10:54-55 (“The controller tracks and
`
`monitors the throughput (e.g., data storage and retrieval) of the data compression
`
`system”).
`
`VII. Overview of Prior Art
`A. Overview of Brooks Reference (Ex. 1006)
`
`
`
`“Brooks” refers to U.S. Patent No. 7,143,432 to Brooks et al., which is
`
`in the record as Exhibit 1006.
`
` Brooks is directed to “systems for transcoding and transforming video
`
`streams.” Ex. 1006, at 3:8-9. Brooks teaches an “apparatus for adapting input
`
`streams of video data to meet desired parameters for output streams of video data”
`
`
`
`18
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 22
`
`

`

`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`and “[o]n the fly adaption to desired output parameters [for] display size, frame rate,
`
`
`
`bit-depth, bit rate, encoding format, and the like.” Id. at 3:10-14.
`
` One embodiment of Brooks is shown in Figure 1, reproduced below.
`
`
`
` Brooks teaches that “gateway computer 100 is configured to receive
`
`video data from computer system 110 and to provide video data to each device
`
`according to that device’s bandwidth limitations, and in the output format desired.”
`
`Id. at 7:8-11. Brooks provides that a wide range of media compression formats are
`
`envisioned to be used with embodiments, including “M-JPEG, GIF, MPEG format,
`
`H.263 format, Windows Media format, Quicktime format, Real Video format, or the
`
`
`
`19
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 23
`
`

`

`
`IPR2019-01035 (’477 Patent)
`EXHIBIT 2007, ZEGER POR DECLARATION
`
`like.” Id. at 9:60-62; see also id. at 10:8-10 (“JPEG, JPEG-2000, GIF, WBMP,
`
`
`
`MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, H.263, *.avi, *.mov, *.rm, *.aff, and the like.”).
`
` Brooks does not expressly discuss or teach several concepts relevant to
`
`the challenged claims: (1) “compression rate,” which is the execution speed of a
`
`compression algorithm; (2) arithmetic compression, which is a form of entropy
`
`encoding. Brooks does not discuss compression algorithms or video compression
`
`algorithms in any detail. It merely lists a dozen or more algorithms in cursory fashion
`
`as indicated in the previous paragraph.
`
`B. Overview of the ’468 Application (Ex. 1007)
`
` The ’468 Application refers to U.S. Provisional Patent Application
`
`60/157,468, filed on October 1, 1999, and is in the record as Exhibit 1007. Brooks
`
`claims priority to the ’468 Application. Dr. Rodriguez asserts that the ’468
`
`Application is incorporated by r