IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`___________
`
`Case IPR2019-01109
`Patent No. 9,769,477
`___________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,769,477
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................... 2
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ......................................................... 2
`A.
`Priority .................................................................................................. 2
`B.
`Prior Art ................................................................................................ 2
`C.
`Statutory Grounds................................................................................. 4
`D.
`Petition Is Not Redundant .................................................................... 4
`’477 PATENT ................................................................................................. 5
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 6
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ........................................................................ 7
`B.
`Claim Terms ......................................................................................... 7
`1.
`“asymmetric data compression encoder[s]” .............................. 7
`2.
`“data blocks” .............................................................................. 8
`3.
`“video or image data profile” ................................................... 10
`PRIOR ART .................................................................................................. 11
`A.
`Overview of Imai (EX1005) .............................................................. 11
`B.
`Overview of Pauls (EX1007) ............................................................. 13
`C.
`Overview of Dawson (EX1025) ......................................................... 15
`D.
`Overview of Lai (EX1016) ................................................................ 17
`VII. CHALLENGED CLAIMS ........................................................................... 19
`A.
`Ground 1: Claims 15-19, 28, and 29 are Obvious in view of
`Imai and Pauls .................................................................................... 19
`1.
`Motivation to Combine Imai and Pauls ................................... 19
`2.
`Dependent Claims 15, 16, and 28 ............................................ 20
`3.
`Dependent Claim 17 ................................................................ 46
`4.
`Dependent Claims 18, 19, and 29 ............................................ 49
`Ground 2: Claims 7 and 23 of the ’477 Patent are Obvious in
`View of Imai, Pauls, and Dawson. ..................................................... 54
`
`VI.
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`C.
`
`Motivation to Combine Imai, Pauls, and Dawson ................... 54
`1.
`Dependent Claims 7 and 23 ..................................................... 57
`2.
`Ground 3: Claims 8 and 24 of the ’477 Patent are Obvious in
`view of Imai, Pauls, and Lai ............................................................... 61
`1.
`Motivation to Combine Imai, Pauls, and Lai ........................... 61
`2.
`Dependent Claims 8 and 24 ..................................................... 65
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 70
`IX. MANDATORY NOTICES AND FEES ...................................................... 71
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`EX1008
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`EX1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477 to Fallon et al. (“the ’477 Patent”)
`EX1002
`Prosecution File History for the ’477 Patent
`EX1003 Declaration of Dr. James A. Storer
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H11331305 to Imai et
`EX1004
`al. (“Imai”)
`Certified English Translation of Imai
`EX1005
`EX1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,507,611 to Imai et al. (“Imai ’611”)
`EX1007
`European Patent Application Publication No. EP0905939A2 to
`Pauls et al. (“Pauls”)
`Excerpt from William Pennebaker et al., JPEG Still Image Data
`Compression Standard (Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1993)
`EX1009 Andreas Spanias et al., Audio Signal Processing and Coding (John
`Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007)
`Raymond Westwater et al., Real-Time Video Compression
`Techniques and Algorithms (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997)
`EX1011 David Salomon, A Guide to Data Compression Methods (Springer-
`Verlag New York, Inc., 2002)
`Le Gall, MPEG: A Video Compression Standard for Multimedia
`Applications (April 1991)
`EX1013 Memorandum Opinion and Order, Realtime Data, LLC v. Rackspace
`US, Inc. et al., No. 6:16-CV-00961, Dkt. 183 (E.D. Tex. June 14,
`2017)
`EX1014 Memorandum Opinion and Order, Realtime Data, LLC v. Actian
`Corp. et al., No. 6:15-CV-00463, Dkt. 362 (E.D. Tex. July 28,
`2016)
`EX1015 U.S. Patent No. 5,873,065 to Akagiri et al.
`EX1016 U.S. Patent No. 6,407,680 to Lai et al. (“Lai”)
`
`EX1010
`
`EX1012
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`EX1020
`
`EX1019
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`EX1017 Notice of Interested Parties, Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC v.
`Hulu LLC, No. 2:17-CV-07611, Dkt. 18 (C.D. Cal. October 24,
`2017)
`EX1018 Mark Nelson, The Data Compression Book, M&T Books, 1991
`(“Nelson”)
`J. Golston, Comparing Media Codecs for Video Content, Embedded
`Systems Conference, San Francisco, 2004
`International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication
`Standardization Sector Recommendation H.263 (February 1998)
`(H.263 Standard)
`EX1021 U.S. Patent No. 6,195,024 to Fallon
`EX1022
`International PCT Application Publication WO 00/51243 to Park
`EX1023 Declaration of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge, Realtime
`EX1024
`Data, LLC v. Packeteer, Inc., Case No. 6:08-CV-144, Dkt. 379
`(E.D. Tex. June 23, 2009)
`EX1025 U.S. Patent No. 5,553,160 to Dawson
`EX1026
`Prosecution File History for Lai
`EX1027
`Intel Corp., 1994 Annual Report (1994)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Petitioner”) requests
`
`inter partes review of Claims 7, 8, 15-19, 23, 24, 28, and 29 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,769,477 (EX1001). The challenged claims of the ’477 Patent claim known
`
`compression concepts, specifically, selection of compression encoders based upon
`
`parameters such as throughput of a communications channel, resolution, and input
`
`data transmission rate, combined with the use of asymmetric data compression
`
`encoders.
`
`Prior art, including the Imai and Pauls references, taught selecting data
`
`compression encoders (including asymmetric encoders) based on throughput no
`
`later than 1999, well before the ’477 Patent was filed in 2001. Imai’s data
`
`transmission system selects asymmetric compression algorithms based on a
`
`determined throughput of the transmission channel. Pauls’ adaptive
`
`communication data formatting system also accounts for the nature and speed of
`
`the network in selecting from a variety of asymmetric video transcoders. Both
`
`references teach selecting asymmetric compression algorithms for use. Moreover,
`
`arithmetic encoders, like the one standardized as part of the H.263 standard taught
`
`by Pauls, were already known in the art by 2001. The Dawson and Lai references
`
`provide additional teachings regarding the well-known concepts of selecting an
`
`encoder based on parameters of input data, such as resolution and data
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`transmission rate. The challenged claims are rendered obvious by the combination
`
`of Imai and Pauls alone, or in further combination with either Dawson or Lai.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’477 Patent is eligible for inter partes review and
`
`that it is not barred or estopped from requesting this inter partes review.
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`A.
`
`Priority
`
`The ’477 Patent issued from Application No. 14/876,276, and claims priority
`
`to Provisional Patent Application No. 60/268,394, which was filed February 13,
`
`2001. Petitioner is not aware of any claim by the Patent Owner that the ’477
`
`Patent is entitled to an earlier priority date.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art1
`Exhibit 1004 – Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H11331305
`
`(“Imai”) is prior art under at least pre-AIA §102(a) and (b) because it published
`
`November 30, 1999, which is over one year before the ’477 Patent’s earliest
`
`priority date. See §VI.A. (Exhibit 1005 – certified English translation of Imai);
`
`1 Because each claim of the ’477 Patent claims priority to an application filed
`
`before March 16, 2013, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 applies. MPEP §2159.02.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(Exhibit 1006 – U.S. Patent No. 6,507,611 (“the Imai ’611 Patent”) is the U.S.
`
`sibling of Imai).2
`
`Exhibit 1007 – European Patent Publication No. EP0905939A2 (“Pauls”) is
`
`prior art under at least pre-AIA §102 (a) and (b). See §VI.B.
`
`Exhibit 1025 – U.S. Patent No. 5,553,160 (“Dawson”) is prior art under at
`
`least pre-AIA §102(a), (b), and (e). See §VI.C.
`
`Exhibit 1016 – U.S. Patent No. 6,407,680 (“Lai”) is prior art under at least
`
`pre-AIA §102(e) because it was filed December 22, 2000, which is before the ’477
`
`Patent’s earlier priority date. See §VI.D.
`
`Imai, Pauls, and Lai were neither cited to nor considered during prosecution
`
`of the ’477 Patent. EX1001; see generally, EX1002. Dawson was only referenced
`
`in an Information Disclosure Statement (“IDS”) submitted October 30, 2015 that
`
`listed 624 different U.S. Patent Documents, 962 different non-patent literature
`
`documents, and 27 Foreign Patent Documents. EX1002 at 175, 192.
`
`2 The Imai ’611 Patent (EX1006) claims priority to Imai and contains
`
`substantively identical figures and disclosures.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Statutory Grounds
`C.
`Petitioner requests inter partes review on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`No.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`References
`
`Statutory Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Imai (EX1005)
`Pauls (EX1007)
`Imai (EX1005)
`Pauls (EX1007)
`Dawson (EX1025)
`Imai (EX1005)
`Pauls (EX1007)
`Lai (EX1016)
`
`Obviousness (§103)
`
`15-19, 28, 29
`
`Obviousness (§103)
`
`7, 23
`
`Obviousness (§103)
`
`8, 24
`
`Petition Is Not Redundant
`D.
`The factors identified in General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon
`
`Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017), do not
`
`provide a basis for denying institution of this petition. This is the first petition for
`
`inter partes review that has been filed by this Petitioner that challenges claims 7, 8,
`
`15-19, 23, 24, 28 and 29 of the ’477 Patent. The petition for inter partes review
`
`that was filed on March 4, 2019, by this Petitioner in IPR2019-00786 challenges
`
`different claims of the ’477 Patent (claims 1-6, 9-14, 20-22, and 25-27). No Patent
`
`Owner Preliminary Response has been filed and no Institution Decision has issued
`
`in IPR2018-00786. This petition challenges the same claims based on the same
`
`grounds as those instituted in IPR2018-01630, and Petitioner is concurrently filing
`
`a motion for joinder with that IPR. This petition is substantively identical to the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`petition in the -01630 proceeding and is based on the same exhibits. Petitioner is
`
`not aware of any reason that the Board would be unable to timely issue a final
`
`written decision on this petition or the petition in the -01630 proceeding.
`
`IV.
`
`’477 PATENT
`
`The ’477 Patent is directed to “compressing and decompressing data based
`
`on the actual or expected throughput (bandwidth) of a system employing data
`
`compression.” EX1001 at 9:27–31. The ’477 Patent states that “dynamic
`
`modification of compression system parameters so as to provide an optimal
`
`balance between execution speed of the algorithm (compression rate) and the
`
`resulting compression ratio, is highly desirable.” Id. at 1:64–67.
`
`The ’477 Patent purports to solve “bottlenecks” in the throughput of a
`
`system by switching between different compression algorithms applied to data.
`
`EX1001 at 10:3–8. The ’477 Patent notes that asymmetric algorithms provide “a
`
`high compression ratio (to effectively increase the storage capacity of the hard
`
`disk) and fast data access (to effectively increase the retrieval rate from the hard
`
`disk).” Id. at 13:39–45. On the other hand, symmetric routines “compris[e] a fast
`
`compression routine.” Id. at 14:40–43. In one embodiment, a controller “tracks
`
`and monitors the throughput … of the data compression system 12.” Id. at 10:54–
`
`57. When the throughput of the system falls below a predetermined threshold, the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`system generates control signals to enable/disable different compression
`
`algorithms. Id. at 10:55–58.
`
`The ’477 Patent describes different “popular compression techniques” that
`
`were known in the prior art. EX1001 at 5:11. Specifically, the ’477 Patent admits
`
`that arithmetic compression was known and that arithmetic coding was a “popular
`
`compression technique [that] possesses the highest degree of algorithmic
`
`effectiveness.” Id. at 5:11–12. However, the ’477 Patent does not teach how to
`
`select algorithms based upon resolution or data transmission rate. EX1003 at 80.
`
`Petitioner is not aware of any objective evidence of non-obviousness for the
`
`challenged claims of the ’477 Patent.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`To the extent the Applicant has defined a claim term in the specification,
`
`Petitioner has used that definition. For the purpose of deciding the grounds of
`
`invalidity presented by this petition,3 the following terms should be construed:
`
`“asymmetric data compression encoder[s],” “data blocks,” and “video or image
`
`data profile.”
`
`3 None of the claim construction issues that are necessary to resolve the invalidity
`
`grounds presented by this petition differ based upon the application of broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation versus the district court-type claim construction
`
`standards. EX1003 at 87.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`A.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of February 13, 2001
`
`would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a
`
`similar field with at least two years of experience in data compression or a person
`
`with a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar
`
`field with a specialization in data compression. EX1003 at 65. A person with less
`
`education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Terms
`
`1.
`
`“asymmetric data compression encoder[s]”
`
`A POSITA would have understood that the term “asymmetric data
`
`compression encoder(s)” means “an encoder(s) configured to utilize a compression
`
`algorithm in which the execution time for the compression and decompression
`
`routines differ significantly” in view of the specification. See EX1003 at 88–89.
`
`Although the ’477 Patent does not describe an “asymmetric data compression
`
`encoder,” it provides an express definition for an “asymmetrical data compression
`
`algorithm.” The ’477 Patent states “[a]n asymmetrical data compression algorithm
`
`is referred to herein as one in which the execution time for the compression and
`
`decompression routines differ significantly.” See, e.g., EX1001 at 10:12–23.
`
`Moreover, the specification gives examples of asymmetric and symmetric
`
`algorithms, stating that “dictionary-based compression schemes such as Lempel-
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Ziv” are asymmetric, while “table-based compression schemes such as Huffman”
`
`are symmetric. EX1001 at 10:19–20, 10:24–25.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should find that “asymmetric data compression
`
`encoder(s)” means “an encoder(s) configured to utilize a compression algorithm in
`
`which the execution time for compression and decompression differ significantly.”
`
`EX1003 at 88–89.
`
`2.
`
`“data blocks”
`
`A POSITA would have understood that “data block,” in the context of the
`
`specification, means “a unit of data comprising more than one bit.” See EX1003 at
`
`90–93. First, “data block” is used consistently in the claims to refer to a unit of
`
`data that is compressed by a compression algorithm. EX1001 at 20:57–22:63, cls.
`
`1, 9, 19, and 25. The specification further explains that “[d]ata compression is
`
`widely used to reduce the amount of data required to process, transmit, or store a
`
`given quantity of information,” which indicates that a data block must be a unit
`
`large enough for there to be a chance to realize a reduction in size through
`
`compression. EX1001 at 2:52–54; EX1003 at 90. The smallest unit of digital data
`
`representation is a bit, and the information contained in a single bit cannot be
`
`represented through compression with fewer bits. EX1003 at 90. Therefore, a data
`
`block must be more than one bit in length so that it can be compressed as claimed.
`
`Id.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The ’477 patent specification also supports this construction. It describes
`
`“block structured disk compression” as operating on blocks of data that are either
`
`“fixed” or “variable in size.” EX1001 at 7:19–21. The specification states that
`
`data blocks can represent files, and that “[a] single file usually is comprised of
`
`multiple blocks, however, a file may be so small as to fit within a single block.”
`
`Id. at 7:21–23. Also, the specification goes on to discuss the pros and cons of
`
`smaller and larger data block sizes. Id. at 7:25–39.
`
`The ’477 Patent incorporates by reference U.S. Patent No. 6,195,024, which
`
`uses the term “data block” in a consistent manner:
`
`It is to be understood that the system processes the input
`data streams in data blocks that may range in size from
`individual bits through complete files or collections of
`multiple files. Additionally, the data block size may be
`fixed or variable. The counter module [] counts the size
`of each input data block (i.e., the data block size is
`counted in bits, bytes, words, any convenient data
`multiple or metric.
`
`EX1021 at 7:9–15. In district court proceedings, the Patent Owner4 has twice
`
`stipulated to a similar construction of this term. EX1013 at 34; EX1014 at 40
`
`4 The entity in those proceeding is Realtime Data, LLC rather than Realtime
`
`Adaptive Streaming LLC, the Patent Owner here. EX1017.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(both evidencing Patent Owner’s agreement that “data block” means “a single unit
`
`of data, which may range in size from individual bits through complete files or
`
`collection of multiple files”). Thus, the Patent Owner’s use of the term in litigation
`
`supports Petitioner’s construction.
`
`3.
`
`“video or image data profile”
`
`A POSITA would have understood that “video or image data profile” means
`
`“information used to determine which compression algorithm should be used for a
`
`video or image data type.” EX1003 at 94. The ’477 Patent states that “[t]he
`
`controller 11 utilizes information comprising a plurality of data profiles 15 to
`
`determine which compression algorithms should be used by the data compression
`
`system 12.” EX1001 at 11:24-27. Consistent with this passage, the ’477 Patent
`
`describes that, in a preferred embodiment, “data profiles” can comprise
`
`“information regarding predetermined access profiles of different data sets, which
`
`enables the controller [] to select a suitable compression algorithm based on the
`
`data type.” Id. at 11:49-52. In one example, a data profile “may comprise a map
`
`that associates different data types (based on, e.g., a file extension) with preferred
`
`[] compression algorithms 13.” Id. at 11:53–12:1. While the specification does
`
`not mention a “video or image data profile,” a POSITA would have understood
`
`this phrase to mean a data profile that includes information about one or more
`
`video or image data types, and therefore, in the context of the claims, that the
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`phrase would mean “information used to determine which compression algorithm
`
`should be used for a video or image data type.” EX1003 at 94.
`
`VI. PRIOR ART
`
`A.
`
`Overview of Imai (EX1005)
`
`Imai is a published Japanese Patent Application. EX1005. Imai is directed
`
`to encoding digital data for transmission over a network using real-time
`
`decompression and reproduction at a client by selecting an appropriate encoder,
`
`from a plurality, based on various factors including the detected throughput of a
`
`network. EX1005 at [0001], [0005], [0067]–[0068], [0100]–[0101], Solution
`
`means. After receiving a request for digital data from a client, Imai’s “frame
`
`cutting circuit” cuts the requested digital data into “units of frame” having a length
`
`that is suitable for coding or for transmission on a network. EX1005 at [0130],
`
`[0066]. Imai’s “units of frame” are units of data bits or digital data blocks on
`
`which Imai’s compression and transmission system operates. EX1003 at 97.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Switch 52 supplies each individual digital data “frame” output from the frame
`
`cutting circuit to a selected one of a plurality of available encoders 531 to 53N.
`
`EX1005 at [0066]. Selection instructing unit 55 selects an appropriate “one from a
`
`plurality of coding methods corresponding to the encoders 531 to 53N … and then
`
`instructs the encoding selecting circuit 56 to select the decided coding method.”
`
`EX1005 at [0070]. Imai’s encoders are configured to utilize asymmetric
`
`compression algorithms including the MPEG audio layers 1, 2, and 3. EX1005 at
`
`[0067]; see EX1010 at 7 (stating that MPEG layer 3 is an asymmetric compression
`
`algorithm); EX1003 at 98.
`
`Imai’s “selection instructing unit” analyzes various factors to decide which
`
`compression algorithm to select and apply to each individual data frame. For
`
`example, Imai teaches assessing client processing ability by analyzing the client’s
`
`processing of “dummy data packets” to determine client resources that are
`
`“employed for [] other process[es]” and resources that are available. EX1005 at
`
`[0099]–[0100]. Imai’s selection instructing unit also determines characteristics of
`
`the uncompressed data and selects a compression algorithm accordingly. EX1005
`
`at [0102]. The selection instructing unit accounts for these variations in selecting a
`
`suitable coding method. EX1005 at [0102]. Imai additionally describes a detailed
`
`process for deriving a transmission rate of a network communication channel by
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`timing the transmission and receipt of data packets between the client and server.
`
`EX1005 at [0149]–[0150].
`
`While some of Imai’s embodiments are directed to audio coding, Imai
`
`explains that its “invention is also applicable to other signals such as video signals,
`
`other types of time series signals ….” EX1005 at [0172]. Thus, Imai’s teachings
`
`are not limited to audio, but apply more generally to selecting and applying various
`
`encoders based on specific data parameters, regardless of the target data set for
`
`each underlying algorithm (e.g., audio or voice). EX1003 at 101. It would have
`
`been well-known to a POSITA at the relevant time that audio, video, and image
`
`compression techniques were related, and it would have been common for a
`
`POSITA to consult and utilize teachings from these related data types, even
`
`without Imai’s explicit suggestion to do so. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Pauls (EX1007)
`
`Pauls is a European Patent Application Publication that published in 1999
`
`and was assigned to Lucent Technologies. Pauls is directed to “improving data
`
`transfer performance over communications networks connecting data networks and
`
`users using adaptive communications formatting.” EX1007 at Abstract. Pauls
`
`explains that adaptive communications formatting involves “encoding (or
`
`compressing)” data to “reduce the amount of data being transmitted” using
`
`“transcoding techniques.” EX1007 at [0003]. Like Imai, Pauls teaches selecting
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`one from a plurality of encoders based on various data parameters, such as the
`
`throughput of a communication channel. Pauls has extensive teachings on
`
`selecting between different asymmetric video encoders. EX1007 at [0009]–
`
`[0010], [0012], FIG. 3.
`
`Pauls teaches that the particular transcoders applied are selected based upon
`
`factors such as the “nature of the communications network,” the type of data being
`
`transmitted, and the preferences of the user. See EX1007 at [0003]. For the nature
`
`of the communications network, Pauls teaches a relevant factor is “the available
`
`bandwidth” and the “bit rate” of the network. Id. at [0013].
`
`Pauls teaches that a system may have more than one video/image transcoder.
`
`See EX1007 at FIG. 3. Pauls explains that different transcoders are more effective
`
`than others for particular data types. Id. at [0017]. For example, Pauls teaches that
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the input video may be in an MPEG or MPEG2 format, and that H.263 may be an
`
`effective transcoding technique. Id. at [0017], [0024], FIG. 5. Furthermore, H.263
`
`had the option of forming the compressed video data using an arithmetic
`
`compression algorithm. EX1020 at 69–76; EX1003 at 104.
`
`In one embodiment, Pauls teaches that “[t]he communication network 16
`
`connects the user 14 to the access server 20 … [and u]pon connecting to the access
`
`server 20, the user 14 can retrieve data from the host 22.” EX1007 at [0006].
`
`Pauls teaches “[t]he data (or file) is retrieved via a bitstream from the host 22 to the
`
`access server 20 to the user 14.” Id. at [0008]. Pauls teaches that “[a]t the access
`
`server 20, the data is formatted using a mixture of transcoding techniques and error
`
`control schemes to facilitate data transmission within acceptable quality levels.”
`
`Id. at [0008].
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Dawson (EX1025)
`
`Dawson is a U.S. Patent that issued to Intel in 1996. Dawson teaches
`
`“dynamically select[ing] an image compression process for an image” to be
`
`transmitted or stored. EX1025 at [Abstract]. Dawson teaches selecting between a
`
`lossless compression algorithm, such as LZW (Lempel-Ziv-Welch), or a lossy
`
`compression algorithm, such as JPEG, to compress image data based on the
`
`estimated “entropy of the image.” Id. at 10:23-27, 12:17-22. Dawson first
`
`determines whether the input image size, or resolution, is less than a predetermined
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`value. Id. at 9:57-59. Dawson determines the “size” of the image by “multiplying
`
`the screen resolution of the image by the color resolution of the image. The screen
`
`resolution of the image refers to the number of pixels which comprise the image.”
`
`Id. at 9:60-63. Dawson teaches using the image resolution, color resolution, and a
`
`compression ratio of a sample of the image in deciding whether to compress with
`
`lossless or lossy compression. Id. at 9:55-10:22, FIG. 4.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`D.
`
`Overview of Lai (EX1016)
`
`Lai is a U.S. Patent that was filed in 2000. Lai teaches a “media transcoding
`
`system” for “on-demand transcoding of media content” that “expedites the
`
`publishing process for media content providers by allowing them to publish media
`
`content without first employing off-line encoding services” and thereby decreases
`
`publishing costs and delay for content providers. EX1016 at 2:65, 3:35-36, 4:36-
`
`45. Lai teaches a media transcoding engine 106 that acts as an “intermediate”
`
`between the content provider and the content viewer by “selecting one of a
`
`plurality of transcoders for transcoding from a plurality of source types to a
`
`plurality of destination types based on the source type and the destination type.”
`
`Id. at 7:39-41, 3:3-6. Specifically, the media transcoding engine receives requests
`
`for media content from the viewer and obtains the requested content from the
`
`content provider. Id. at 7:39-41. “The media transcoding engine 106 then
`
`transcodes the media received from the content provider 104 from a source type to
`
`a destination type that can be accommodated by the viewer client 102 and delivers
`
`the transcoded media content to the viewer.” Id. at 7:39-49. The “source type”
`
`and “destination type” are defined according to “publishing variables” that “may
`
`be the file format of the media content, the bit-rate of the media content, the
`
`compression algorithm according to which the media content is stored, the
`
`communication protocol according to which the media content is transferred, or the
`
`17
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`physical medium on which the media content is stored.” Id. at 4:1-11. Lai teaches
`
`that its transcoding engine may further identify an “optimal” destination type
`
`configuration for a client that “may be updated periodically in case of network
`
`condition changes between the viewer client 102 and the network 108 (e.g., change
`
`of Internet Service Provider, or change of connection speed).” Id. at 9:38-43.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`VII. CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 15-19, 28, and 29 are Obvious in view of Imai
`and Pauls
`
`The combination of Imai and Pauls renders obvious Claims 15-19, 28, and
`
`29. EX1003 at 112.
`
`1. Motivation to Combine Imai and Pauls
`
`A POSITA would have many motivations to combine Imai and Pauls.
`
`EX1003 at 114–123. Both references are used for the same purpose: encoding data
`
`at a server for transmission to a client over a distributed network such as the
`
`Internet. They both teach encoding data using encoding methods that achieve data
`
`compression using asymmetric techniques. See §§VI.A, VI.B, VII.A.2, 1[a]. Also,
`
`both references choose an encoding method based upon the type of data being
`
`transmitted. §VII.A.2, 1[d]-[e]. Further, both teach choosing the encoding method
`
`based upon a throughout of the communications channel connecting the client.
`
`§VII.A.2, 1[d]-[e]. Imai and Pauls discuss implementing their inventions on
`
`known computer systems. EX1003 at 116; EX1005 at [0052]–[0057]; EX1007 at
`
`[0005].
`
`While Imai discusses audio signals and data at length, Imai notes that its
`
`teachings are “also applicable to other signals such as video signals, other types of
`
`time series signals, and signals being not in time series.” EX1005 at [0172]. As
`
`Imai applies its teachings to video encoding, a POSITA would logically look
`
`19
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,769,477 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`towards other prior art references involving data encoding and video encoding
`
`techniques to create a video encoding and transmission system. One such prior art
`
`reference is Pauls, which includes extensive teachings specific to video. See, e.g.,
`
`EX1007 at [0017]–[0019].
`
`A POSITA would thus have been motivated to combine the systems of Imai
`
`and Pauls to utilize the numerous video and image data compression encoders of
`
`Pauls to enable video compression in Imai’s system. EX1003 at 119-120.
`
`Additionally, a POSITA would be motivated to apply Imai’s detailed teachings
`
`regarding determining the bandwidth of a communication channel to Pauls’ system
`
`that selects from multiple video data compression encoders to fine-tune Pauls’
`
`video transmission system. Id. at 120. The combination of the teachings from
`
`Imai and Pauls would have predictable results when building a data encoding and
`
`transmission system suitable for video data. Id. In addition, a POSITA would
`
`have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Imai and Pauls given
`
`the similarities in the systems and given th