Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Data, LLC, IPR2017-02129, (PTAB Sept. 22, 2017)
Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Data, LLC, IPR2017-02129, (PTAB Sept. 22, 2017)
By: Alexander P. Ott, Reg. No. 63,110 Ashraf A. Fawzy, Reg. No. 67,914
McDermott Will & Emery Unified Patents Inc.
500 N. Capitol St., NW 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001 Washington, D.C., 20009
Tel: (202) 756-8496 Tel: (202) 871-0110
Email: AOtt@mwe.com Email: afawzy@unifiedpatents.com
v.
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
____________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
I. MANDATORY NOTICES................................................................................................. 1
A. Summary ................................................................................................................. 7
B. Prosecution History............................................................................................... 10
A. Ground I: Claims 1-11 and 22-30 are obvious in view of CPS and
Zusman .................................................................................................................. 14
-i-
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
4. Independent Claim 1 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................. 20
B. Ground II: Claims 12-13, 18, and 20 are obvious in view of CPS
and Gormish .......................................................................................................... 40
-ii-
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
3. Independent Claim 12 is obvious in view of CPS and Gormish............... 41
C. Ground III: Claims 14-17, 19, and 21 are obvious in view of CPS,
Zusman, and Gormish ........................................................................................... 45
-iii-
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
6. Dependent Claim 4 is obvious in view of Appelman and
Zusman ...................................................................................................... 59
-iv-
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
22. Dependent Claim 30 is obvious in view of Appelman and
Zusman ...................................................................................................... 67
-v-
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
Exhibit Description
1010 Excerpts from the File History of U.S. Control No. 95/001,544
-i-
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
INTRODUCTION
Under 35 U.S.C. 311 and 37 C.F.R. 42.100, Petitioner Unified Patents
review with respect to claims 130 of U.S. Patent 8,717,204 (the 204 Patent
(EX1001)).
I. MANDATORY NOTICES
A. Real Party-in-Interest 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(1)
Unified certifies that it is the real party-in-interest, and that no other party
exercised or could have exercised control over its participation in this proceeding,
record for the 204 Patent. Realtime has filed the suits identified below asserting
1
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
The 204 Patent has also been subject to two post-grant challenges,
identified below. None of the art nor arguments presented in this petition were
raised in either of the two post-grant challenges and thus this petition is not barred
patents.
2
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
Fawzy (Reg. No. 67,914) and Jonathan Stroud (Reg. No. 72,518) will act as back-up
Petition.
North Capitol St. NW, Washington, DC 20001, Tel: (202) 756-8000, Fax: (202)
756-8087; or Unified Patents Inc., 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, D.C.,
inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an
inter partes review on the grounds set forth in this Petition. (37 C.F.R.
42.104(A)).
3
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
and requests the Board cancel claims 130 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103.
March 2000, as is shown by both its 1999 copyright date and the
ACM Digital Library index record. (See EX1011, Appendix 1c). This
Scott Bennet. (EX1014 (Bennet Decl.) at 46). CPS is thus prior art
4
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
Zusman is prior art to the 204 Patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and
(e)(2).
filed on September 26, 1996 and issued on June 15, 1999. Gormish is
Zusman, a secondary reference here, is listed on the face of the 204 Patent
but was mentioned only a single time during prosecution and none of the
other references relied upon in this petition have been previously considered by the
USPTO.
5
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
These grounds are not redundant because: the prior art addresses different
claims; Appelman is patent prior art under 102(e) whereas CPS is an article that is
prior art under 102(a); and the prior art addresses different purported
embodiments of the 204 Patent. None of these grounds were considered in the
other post-grant challenges to the 204 Patent and are not redundant under 35
U.S.C. 325(d).
24, 2013 and claims priority to several applications, the earliest of which is
Provisional App. No. 60/237,571 filed on October 3, 2000. 1 The 204 Patent
1
Petitioner does not concede the 204 Patent is entitled to claim priority to the
571s provisional application, and reserves the right to challenge the priority date.
Indeed, the earliest provisional application does not disclose any specific
compression ratios and thus all claims cannot claim priority beyond May 7, 2003
(the date of filing for U.S. Patent 7,417,568 the first patent in the chain to support
6
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
claims priority to a provisional filed prior to enactment of the America Invents Act
A. Summary
The 204 Patent is titled Methods for Encoding and Decoding Data, and
claims systems and method for providing accelerated transmission of data, such
specific compression ratios) because each independent claim of the 204 Patent
requires either a 10:1 or 4:1 compression ratio. If the Board agrees, all prior art
raised in this petition would be prior art under 102(b) rather than 102(a)/(e).
7
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
data. (Id. at 8:34-39). The data server 12 employs data compression to encode the
broadcast data 11 and then transmits the compressed data to one or more client site
systems (the end user[s] of Figure 1). (Id. at 8;39-43). In some embodiments,
24 via a communication stack using any suitable protocol (e.g., [] TCP/IP, UDP,
8
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
decompression where the system determines the type of data and selects
types may be present within a given input data stream, or data block, [the system]
encoders to, in effect, generate a plurality of encoded data streams. (Id. at 14:1-
method and includes: (i) recognizing a characteristic of the data, (ii) selecting an
ratio of over 10:1, and (iv) broadcasting the compressed data. Independent claim
12, which is similar in scope, requires compressing the data to a ratio of over 4:1
compressed data occurs faster than merely transmitting the original uncompressed
data would have. The only other independent claim, Claim 22, also requires the
9
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
B. Prosecution History
The 204 Patent issued on May 6, 2014, from Patent Application 14/035,712
for less than a year, the 204 Patent issued without any substantive amendments or
rejections from the Patent Office. Other patents in the family that share the same
specification as the 204 Patent, such as U.S. Patent 7,400,274, were subject to
proceedings shed light on the meaning of terms within the 204 Patent, as noted in
Section VI, infra. (See EX1009; EX1010). Indeed, all claims of the 274 Patent,
which were very similar or even narrower than those of the 204 Patent, were
rejected as unpatentable over the prior art during re-examination. (EX1010 at 14).
in the art of the 204 Patent would have a degree in Management Information
may make up for less experience and vice versa. (EX1003 at 33).
10
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest reasonable
construction.
construed to include a segregation of data that does not require a specific internal
structure. (EX1003 at 54). The specification of the 204 Patent discloses that
specification does not disclose that a data packet must contain an internal structure;
rather, it explicitly discloses that a packet may have an internal structure (i.e., if
(7,400,274), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) construed data packet to
include a segregation of data that does not require a specific internal structure.
(EX1010 at 94). As the specifications are identical and the context in which the
11
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
patents use the term is the same, this term should also be construed in line with the
indicate which, if any, data encoding techniques are applied to the data. (EX1003
at 55). The specification of the 204 Patent explicitly states [a] data
that indicates which data encoding technique has been applied to the data.
Thus, the 204 Patent defines the term descriptor to refer to some
which denotes which, if any, data encoding techniques are applied to the data.
12
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
directly analyzing data within data blocks. (EX1003 at 56). The specification
of the 204 Patent does not explicitly define either term or ever require an active
step. Further, during a reexamination of the 274 Patent (which shares the same
specification as the 204 Patent), the Patent Owner argued recognizing and
blocks. (EX1010 at 46, 79). The Board rejected the proposed narrowed
construction. (Id. at 10-13, 94-95). The Board held that references that disclose
in order to apply the desired encoder. (Id.). Because the reexamined patent and
the 204 patent share the same specification, the meaning of recognizing or
reexamination.
13
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
A. Ground I: Claims 1-11 and 22-30 are obvious in view of CPS and
Zusman
1. Summary of Compression Proxy Server: Design and Implementation
(CPS)
The CPS reference describes a web proxy server (i.e., compression server)
consumption and web access latency significantly. (EX1004 at 1). CPS discloses
an embodiment where the compression server receives data from a web server,
the data, and forwards the data to a decompression server which decompresses the
data and sends the decompressed data to the client. (Id. at 5).
entire file;
the data immediately and passes the results to the client. (Id. at 3).
14
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
CPS further discloses that the system analyzes incoming data to determine
the data type and then selects a compression algorithm associated with the data
type where each of [the compression algorithms] is optimized for one predefined
type of data. (Id. at 4; see also id. at 3). The system analyzes data by analyzing
specific data fields (such as, for example, a reply header field Content-Type) or
compression algorithms for three data types: (1) gif objects, (2) text/octet-stream
objects, and (3) jpeg objects. (Id. at 4-5). CPS makes clear, however, that this is
just a reasonable set of combinations and may not be optimal. There is no intention
in this paper to define any optimal algorithms, instead leaving that to the reader of
compression algorithms, CPS discloses a compression algorithm for gif object data
that achieves a compression ratio of 18.605 for larger gif objects. (Id.; see also id.
15
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
Finally, CPS discloses that the time it takes the system to compress and
broadcast received data is less than the time it would take to broadcast the data in
uncompressed form. (Id. at 8-9; see also id. at Fig. 5). CPS discloses that the
latency of the web object and the bandwidth consumption were measured [for
at 7). The result [of the experiment] is shown in Figure 5[, reproduced below].
Stream data compression improves the web access latency by about 10%, which is
quite good. With block data compression, the improvement goes up to about 25%-
16
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
market data where the system receives ticker feed data from many exchanges
throughout the world, processes and formats [i.e., compresses] the received data
exemplary financial market data system embodiment. (Id. at 5:24-42, Fig. 1).
17
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
transaction messages into data blocks and assigns block sequence numbers in each
feed, performs data compression and transmits the resulting broadcast feeds data
10:8-13, 7:63-67).
Zusman also discloses that the financial market data includes trading
options, commodity contracts, and many others. (Id. at 9:41-46). Some of the
data included in the outgoing broadcasts include sequence number, optional flags,
18
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
administrative data, creation date, termination date, and action. (Id. at 16:63-
17:2). Overall, Zusman discloses: (i) receiving and compressing financial data,
systems to broadcast the compressed data of the CPS system to multiple clients (as is
Additionally, both the CPS and Zusman systems/methods are directed to receiving,
financial data), and thus a POSITA would have expected the predictable benefits
For example, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the CPS
system, at least because it would be much more efficient to compress data once and
broadcast it to multiple clients rather than to repeatedly compress and transmit data
for each client. (Id.). When multiple clients need access to the same datasuch as
skill in the art would have easily recognized it is far more efficient (and faster) to
process and broadcast the information to all clients at once, rather than running the
same process/method for each client. (Id.). Moreover, Zusman explicitly discloses a
19
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
from many exchanges throughout the world, processes and formats the received data
and then distributes or broadcasts the data to regional customers [i.e., clients].
processing data (e.g., compressing and streaming web data). For example, it
discloses system architecture design and support for automatic web data
Abstract, 1).
Further, both CPS and Zusman disclose that the data resid[es] in a data
field. For example, CPS discloses processing data in HTML text files, gif/jpeg
images, avi/asf/mpeg videos, [] etc. and the data of these standard file-types is
within data fields. (EX1003 at 81). Further, Zusman, discloses [a] central ticker
plant system for distributing financial market data, and explicitly states that the
financial data processed by the disclosed system is within data fields. (E.g.,
CPSs compression system with the financial data of Zusman for the reasons
20
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
described above in Section VII.A.3. Thus, to the extent that the preamble is found
the data for two reasons. First, CPS discloses a system that checks the reply header
field Content-Type. If this field matches with the proxys supported compression
>can_compress variables will be set. (EX1004 at 7; see also id. at 4-5). Thus,
of the data) of the data coming into the system by checking specific data fields
(e.g., the reply header field). (Id. at 3). Second, another characteristic the CPS
system recognizes is file sizes within the incoming data. (Id. at 3-5). For example,
CPS discloses examining the file size of gif Objects to determine whether to
parameter of the data). First, CPS discloses that the system look[s] at each object
type and [to] see what kind of compression can be performed and then selects an
appropriate encoder based on the recognized object type. (Id. at 4-5). In one
21
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
embodiment, [t]he compression proxy checks the reply header field and then
selects a compression algorithm (i.e., encoder) based on the data/object type, noting
that each of [the compression algorithms] is optimized for one predefined type of
data object. (Id. at 4, 7). For example, CPS discloses selecting a particularized
data at all) based on the size of a file within the data. (Id. at 4). CPS discloses
within a certain range. (Id.). Thus, CPS discloses selecting a compression algorithm
(i.e., encoder) associated with the recognized object type or size (i.e., characteristic,
encoder), the system compresses the received data and achieves a compression ratio
of over 10:1. (Id. at 4-5). For certain data types, such as gifs, the system utilizes a
compression algorithm with a 25% lossy factor and explicitly lists the resulting
compression ratios. (Id. at 4). Table 2[, highlighted below,] shows the
compression ratio of the gif-to-jpeg transformer with 25% lossy factor. (Id.). As
22
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
highlighted below, this exemplary system achieves a compression ratio of 18.6 for
any files above 128k in size, well over the recited 10:1 ratio. (Id. at Fig. 2).
To the extent Patent Owner argues that the claim is narrower in scope (e.g.,
requiring exclusive compression of greater than 10:1), this lacks any support in the
record. (EX1003 at 86). Indeed, the 204 Patent never specifies that the system
must always achieve a compression ratio of 10:1; rather, it notes throughout that the
actual compression ratio achieved depends both on the compression algorithm and
upon the data being compressed. For example, the Patent discloses that [i]n one
added). In another embodiment, the 204 Patent contemplates a system wherein the
compression scheme will be modified when the compression ratio falls below a
certain threshold, thus disclosing that the compression ratio is not constant and may
23
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
the 204 Patent even contemplates not compressing data at all if every encoder fails
compression ratio threshold, and thus clearly contemplates scenarios where the
compression ratio is 1:1 for certain data. (EX1001 at 15:8-10). This closely tracks
the disclosure from CPS, which states that data is not compressed if compressing the
data will not improve system performance but where other data is compressed to less
than one-tenth the original size (i.e., achieving a compression ratio of 10:1).
systems that typically give or typically result in compression ratios over the
claimed ratios would infringe the 204 Patent. Thus, even under the Patent Owners
explanation of the claim scope, the system need not always achieve compression
ticker feed data from many exchanges throughout the world, processes and formats
the received data and then distributes or broadcasts the data to regional customers
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine the CPS and Zusman
systems to broadcast the compressed data of the CPS system to multiple clients, for
24
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
the same reasons as listed above in Section VII.A.3 (i.e., to allow the system to serve
multiple clients, to improve efficiency, and to increase the speed of the system).
(EX1003 at 116).
received data is less than the time it would take to broadcast the data in
uncompressed form. Indeed, CPS discloses that the authors estimated the
improvement of web access latency due to data compression [i.e., measuring the
uncompressed data]. (EX1004 at 9). The result [of the experiment] is shown in
Figure 5[, reproduced below]. Stream data compression improves the web access
latency by about 10%, which is quite good. With block data compression, the
improvement goes up to about 25%- 30%. (Id. at 9; see also id. at Fig. 5).
25
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
Because the CPS system discloses that compressing and transmitting data
transmitted to a proxy server, and then decompressed by the proxy server. (EX1004
at 8-9). CPS discloses that Figure 3[, reproduced below,] shows the average time
26
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
CPS discloses that [t]he result [of testing this system] is very impressive;
about 30% of the network bandwidth can be saved and the compression and
outdated PC proxy server). (Id. at 10; see also id. at 9 (decompression time is
smaller than its compression time)) (emphasis added). Because the compression
and decompression overhead is less than 1% of the web access latency (i.e., time to
return data to clients) and compressing the data improves latency by 10%-30% over
discloses that the compressing, the broadcasting, and the decompressing occur over
27
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
a time period which is less than a time to broadcast the data in uncompressed form.
Indeed, CPS states that no compression will even be performed if it does not
improve the overall performance/latency of the system thus, the time to compress,
transmit, and decompress is always lower than the time to transmit uncompressed
compressing data where the data is treated as a continuing stream, and thus contains
many messages. (Id.). As explained above in VI.A, the term data packet should
internal structure. Both the data blocks and data stream (wherein the entire
stream is a segregation of data with a clear start and end) of CPS, therefore,
correspond to the data packet from the claim, as each are segregations of data.
(EX1003 at 89).
28
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
ticker plant system for distributing [i.e., transmitting] financial market data.
(EX1005 Abstract) (emphasis added). Zusman discloses that its broadcast feeds
feeds history file for each such feed generated [and that each] retransmission
message is the same format and contains the same sequence numbers as were
provided in the original broadcast feed data. (Id. at 18:27-29, 20:61-64). Indeed,
Zusman discloses that one of the object[s] of [the Zusman] invention [is] provide
only functions correctly if the financial data is sent in the correct sequence as out-of-
sequence data would present a false picture of the current state and trends of the
data fields (see supra VII.A.4.a) that include stock information. (EX1005 at 9:41-
29
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
46 (As used herein, financial market data includes trading information for a
data fields (see supra VII.A.4.a) that include options information. (EX1005 at
9:41-46 (As used herein, financial market data includes trading information for a
VII.A.4), wherein the compressing is lossy. CPS discloses that its system can
compress and process a wide range of data types where some object types might
allow lossy compression. (EX1004 at 3). CPS also discloses that when selecting
an algorithm [t]o compress [gif] objects, [the system] use[s] the GIF-to-JPEG
transformer with 25% lossy factor. Lossy compression is used here. (Id. at 4)
(emphasis added).
30
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
have been obvious to a POSITA in view of CPS and Zusman. Zusman discloses that
its claimed financial market data distribution system uses the wellknown [sic]
obvious to a POSITA to use UDP instead of TCP. First, a POSITA would have been
aware that TCP and UDP are both well-known and well-understood protocols used
for sending data packets over the Internet. (EX1003 at 92; see also EX1001 at
9:24-30 (stating the system can transmit data using TCP/IP or UDP)). Both
protocols build on top of the IP protocol and work in very similar ways, routing data
packets from the source to intermediary routers and finally to the destination. (Id.).
Finally, UDP results in increased speed over TCP (at the cost of error-checking) and
thus a POSITA would be motivated to use UDP instead of TCP when speed/latency
is a major design factor, such as when designing a compression data routing system.
(Id.). A POSITA, therefore, would have been motivated to use UDP instead of TCP
(as disclosed in Zusman) because of the similarity of the protocols and to take
31
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
transmitted from the server. In one embodiment, for example, CPS discloses using a
compression proxy server that does the compression of web data and then sends
[the data]. (EX1004 at 5). Thus, CPS discloses a server performing the
clients and thus discloses the additional limitation of broadcasting (as opposed to
point-to-point transmission).
the type of data by analyzing the data within a data field rather than analyzing the
indicate which, if any, data encoding techniques are applied to the data. CPS
discloses that, in at least one embodiment, the system recognizes a data type by
32
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
analyzing the data structure of a web request or reply. (EX1004 at 6). The data
structure is generated when the proxy [first] processes a request and [then is] used
during the entire request and reply processes. In the implementation of our
structure to specify that this reply can be compressed [i.e., a characteristic of the
reply data]. (Id. at 6). Because the data structure is neither a word, phrase, or
character, it is not a descriptor, and thus CPS discloses recognizing [data types]
by analyzing the data within the data field and not by analyzing based on a
Further, Zusman discloses that because financial market data includes trading
information for a plurality of securities and because for each security class, many
instrument, the Message validation system 56 tests the incoming internal message
data for consistency with the related financial market data values stored in market
data file. (Id. at 9:51-53). Thus, Zusman analyzes the contents of the data fields
rather than analyzing any descriptors in order to determine the type of data it is
receiving.
33
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
by analyzing the data within the data field rather than analyzing based on a
descriptor because not every data field or data packet would have a easily
82). By analyzing the data within the data field, the system can better determine
the type of data contained within and the appropriate compression algorithm to be
used. (Id.). As discussed above, both Zusman and CPS disclose analyzing the data
within the data fields, thus choosing a compression algorithm based no the analyzed
data would have been obvious to a POSITA and resulted in the predictable benefits
discussed above.
claim element 1[a], and are thus likewise met for the reasons discussed above.
(Supra VII.A.4.a).
with a data field from among a plurality of data fields in a packet of one or more
34
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
data blocks, where the selecting utilizes a list indicative of data fields and their
associated encoders. For example, CPS discloses analyzing the data within the data
systems listed compression algorithms, which are associated with specific data
types. (EX1004 at 7 (Step B2)). If the data type is supported by one of the
compresses the data. (Id. (Step B2, Step B3)). CPS also discloses a non-
exhaustive list of three compression algorithms associated with specific types of data
fields, listing compression algorithms for: (i) gifs, (ii) text/octet-streams, and (iii)
jpegs. (Id. at 4-5). The compression algorithm is selected from this list (i.e.,
utilizing a list as claimed) which associates the specific algorithm with the specific
construed to include a segregation of data that does not require a specific internal
structure. Thus, a plurality of data fields in a packet of one or more data blocks is
merely a plurality of data fields in one or more data blocks within a larger data set
(EX1003 at 89).
35
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
the plurality of data fields to provide encoded data blocks, wherein the size of the
encoded data is at least one-fourth the size of the data before encoding. Zusman, as
explained above in VII.A.8.a., discloses the additional limitation that the data
CPS discloses compressing all data fields in a data block (EX1004 at 3) that
correspond to gif objects, text/octet-stream objects, and jpeg objects. (Id. at 4-5).
CPS also discloses that the size of the encoded data is at least one-fourth the size of
the data before encoding, as explained above in Section VII.A.4.d. (See also id. at
Table 2, below). The combination of CPS and Zusman, therefore, discloses this
limitation.
36
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
claim 2, and are thus likewise met for the reasons discussed above. (Supra
VII.A.5.a).
Zusman discloses that data blocks of financial data that include date information.
For example, Zusman discloses that [e]ach of the[] messages [received by the
system] has the logical contents necessary to support the subsequent processing
date, and/or termination date. (Id. at 16:54-67). Because all three of these
37
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
contents include date information, the combination of Zusman and CPS discloses
this limitation.
Next, Zusman discloses that data blocks of financial data that include sequence
[received by the system] has the logical contents necessary to support the subsequent
timestamp and symbol sequence number are sequence information because such
information is used to order the data in a specific pre-set sequence; thus the
are thus likewise met for the reasons discussed above. (Supra VII.A.5).
are thus likewise met for the reasons discussed above. (Supra VII.A.9).
38
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
are thus likewise met for the reasons discussed above. (Supra VII.A.10).
22 (see supra VII.A.15), wherein the compressing is lossless. CPS discloses that
its system can compress and process a wide range of data types where some
object types might insist on lossless compression. (EX1004 at 3). CPS also
discloses that its system uses hybrid data compression, with both lossy and lossless
compressors. (Id. at 4). Thus, CPS discloses lossless encoding of data in each data
are thus likewise met for the reasons discussed above. (Supra VII.A.12).
are thus likewise met for the reasons discussed above. (Supra VII.A.13).
39
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
B. Ground II: Claims 12-13, 18, and 20 are obvious in view of CPS
and Gormish
1. Summary of U.S. Patent 5,912,636 to Gormish et al. (Gormish)
Gormish, like CPS, Zusman, and the 204 Patent, describes a method and
state storage device and an entropy encoding look-up table, which receives state
information from the channel state storage device. (Id. at 2:35-39). Figure 1B,
reproduced below, illustrates one embodiment of the FSM [finite state machine]
encoder of Gormish with the system of CPS, for at least three reasons. (EX1003 at
40
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
117). First, both inventions specifically deal with the field of data compression
and decompression systems. (EX1006 at 1:7-9; see also EX1004 at 1). Second,
utilizing the state machine of Gormish to encode data would provide the
discloses: [f]inite state machine (FSM) coders have been used in the prior art to
have been motivated to use a finite state machine, such as the one disclosed in
claim element 1[a], and are thus likewise disclosed by CPS for the reasons discussed
claim element 1[b], and are thus likewise disclosed by CPS for the reasons
41
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
claim element 1[c], and are thus likewise disclosed by CPS for the reasons discussed
compression ratio of more than 4:1 (see supra VII.A.15.c). Second, Gormish
discloses using a state machine to provide compressed data. For example, Gormish
discloses [a]n m-ary finite state machine coder where the encoder of the present
invention comprises a channel state storage device and an entropy encoding look-up
table, which receives state information from the channel state storage device. The
entropy encoding table encodes n-bits of input data at a time in response to the state
information from the channel state storage device. (EX1006 at 2:35-42). Figure
1B, reproduced below, illustrates one embodiment of the FSM [finite state
42
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
encoder of Gormish with the system of CPS, for at least the three reasons noted
claim 2, and are thus likewise disclosed by CPS for the reasons discussed above.
compressed data to a client, is also disclosed by CPS. For example, CPS discloses
that after the described system receives data from its upper web server or proxy
level, it will send the data to the client [] as soon as possible. (EX1004 at 5).
Thus, CPS discloses sending the compressed data directly to the client (i.e., point-to-
43
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
transmitting occur over a period of time which is less than a time to transmit the data
in an uncompressed form. Mr. Wegener confirms that sending data from one system
to one other system is known as point-to-point transmission; thus, CPS discloses this
at the client. For example, CPS states that in one embodiment, it is the
responsibility of the web data owner to store the compressed version of the data in
the web server. Since HTTP 1.1 provides a compression data MIME type [12], any
client browser that supports HTTP 1.1 can view the compressed data
web data owner sends compressed data to the client, using compression data MIME
type, and the clients browser automatically decompresses the data for viewing. (Id.;
see also EX1003 at 88). At the very least, it would have been obvious to a
POSITA to modify the CPS system so that the client decompresses the compressed
data because otherwise the client would have no way of interacting with the data
44
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
claim 3, and are thus likewise disclosed by CPS for the reasons discussed above.
(Supra VII.A.6).
are thus likewise disclosed by CPS for the reasons discussed above. (Supra
VII.A.11).
are thus likewise disclosed by CPS for the reasons discussed above. (Supra
VII.A.13).
C. Ground III: Claims 14-17, 19, and 21 are obvious in view of CPS,
Zusman, and Gormish
1. Summary of Ground and Motivation to Combine
This ground combines the references of ground I (CPS and Zusman) with the
Gormish provides the disclosures regarding the state machine of claim 12 (which
all of the claims of this ground depend upon) as discussed in ground II, while
45
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
are thus likewise disclosed by CPS and Zusman for the reasons discussed above.
(Supra VII.A.7).
are thus likewise disclosed by CPS and Zusman for the reasons discussed above.
(Supra VII.A.8).
are thus likewise disclosed by CPS and Zusman for the reasons discussed above.
(Supra VII.A.9).
46
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
are thus likewise disclosed by CPS and Zusman for the reasons discussed above.
(Supra VII.A.10).
are thus likewise disclosed by CPS and Zusman for the reasons discussed above.
(Supra VII.A.12).
are thus likewise disclosed by CPS and Zusman for the reasons discussed above.
(Supra VII.A.14).
47
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
20 that includes a web proxy server 10, a decompressor 24, and a recompressor
passes through the recompression server 20 and the web proxy server 10
determines from a retrieved requested files name or attributes whether the file is
48
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
the decompressor 24 and then recompressed by the recompressor 26; if the file is
done to decide whether the inventive process described above provides a time
The system thus only compresses data if doing so saves time versus just
algorithms to use for specific data types (such as graphics files, gifs, or files
multiple clients (as is performed in Zusman), to allow the system to serve multiple
clients, to improve efficiency, and to increase the speed of the system. (EX1003 at
118). Additionally, both the Appelman and Zusman systems/methods are directed to
49
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
receiving, compressing, and transmitting data to clients, and thus a POSITA would
have been motivated to combine the two references and would have expected the
predictable benefits described above as both references are analogous art. (Id.).
compress financial data once and broadcast it to multiple clients rather than to
repeatedly compress and transmit the same data for each client. (Id.). When
multiple clients all want access to the same datasuch as brokers seeking access to
updated financial markets informationone of ordinary skill in the art would have
easily recognized that is far more efficient to process and broadcast the information
to all clients at once, rather than running the same process/method for each client.
(Id.).
50
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
does not explicitly state that the data resides within a data field, a POSITA would
have recognized that data within live data streams, data blocks, etc. is within data
fields because that is the most common and widely adopted method of transmitting
Further, Zusman explicitly states that the financial data processed by the
disclosed system is within data fields. (E.g., EX1005 at 13:16-20, 14:7-12, 16:5-
Section VII.D.2. Thus, to the extent that the preamble is found to be limiting, this
the data in two separate ways. First, Appelman discloses that it determines from a
retrieved requested files name or attributes whether the file is pre-compressed [i.e.,
file extension (for example, .GIF or .TIF), or key bytes within a file header, or any
below, discloses Appelman analyzing each file at step 500, as described above, to
51
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
Fig. 5).
52
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
uncompressed files (rather than uncompressing and then recompressing the files
more efficiently), additional testing may be done to decide whether the inventive
retransmitting a requested file. (Id. at 4:18-23). This testing, therefore, is also used
to determine an attribute of the data, i.e., whether the inventive process provides
a time savings in transmission for that specific data type. Mr. Wegener confirms
that recognizing whether the data type can be efficiently compressed and transmitted
(i.e., in less time than it would take to transmit the uncompressed data) is
recognizing a characteristic of the data because the compressibility of the data type
is an inherent feature of the data. (EX1003 at 102). Thus, Appelman discloses this
could be whether the file is already compressed or whether the data can be
algorithm that provides a better compression ratio than the original compression.
More than one recompression algorithm may be used if desired, to provide better
53
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
Appelman states that different compression algorithms (i.e., encoders) are associated
with certain data types and are thus utilized when the system recognizes those
specific data types. (Id. at 3:3-10 (the algorithm used by the recompressor 26 for
algorithms associated with data that can be compressed with loss compared to
algorithms associated with data that must be compressed in a lossless fashion. (Id. at
3:10-15). The system thus selects a compression algorithm (e.g., from a list of lossy
and lossless algorithms) based on the file type that was recognized by the system.
Indeed, Mr. Wegener confirms that the file type is an indelible characteristic of the
data and that an encoder is selected based on this characteristic. (EX1003 at 103).
associated with the recognized file type (i.e., characteristic, attribute, or parameter of
the data).
54
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
and MPEG, JPEG, [etc.] for lossy compression, that achieve a compression ratio of
over 10:1. (Id. at 3:10-15). Data compressed according to such standards, (e.g.,
over 10:1. (EX1003 at 105). For example, at the time of Appelman, MPEG
encoding achieved a compression ratio of over 25:1 (id.; see also, e.g., EX1011 at
compression ratios over 10:1 (EX1003 at 105; see also, e.g., EX1012 at 1); and
(EX1003 at 105; see also, e.g., EX1013 at 3). As explained above in Section
VII.4.d, this limitation does not require that the system always compress data to this
threshold, only that it does achieve such a ratio for some data. (See supra VII.4.d).
Thus, Appelman explicitly discloses compressing the data with the selected encoder
Whats more, Appelman discloses using any algorithm that provides a better
optimal result. Thus, to the extent the Board holds that this limitation is not
55
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
encoders (which achieve a compression ratio of over 10:1 on the data, as explained
decompresses the data, recompresses the data more efficiently (or alternatively,
compresses previously uncompressed data), and then transmits the data from the
server to the requestor (i.e., client). (EX1007 at 1:57-67; see also Fig. 2 (shown
below)). Thus, Appelman discloses transmitting compressed data from the server to
a client.
56
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
system with Zusman (which explicitly discloses broadcasting the data to multiple
Section VII.D.2.
and transmits the file in less time than it would have taken to merely transmit the
original data. (EX1007 at 4:23-51). Because the system can perform decompression,
compression and transmission faster than merely transmitting the original data, it can
also necessarily compress and transmit data faster (as removing the step of
transmitting offers a time-savings over merely sending the original file, and the
57
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
data, decompresses the data, recompresses the data more efficiently than it was
originally compressed, and then transmits the recompressed data to the client.
58
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
transmitting the original file. (EX1007 at 4:23-51). It would have been obvious to a
POSITA to use the decompressor (24 in Figure 2, above) of Appelman on the client
transmitting the compressed files, in view of the fact that some requestors do not
the invention and the invention already determines whether compression time +
the decompressor [24], or add a second decompressor, to the client side of the
broadcast. (Id.).
59
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
MPEG, JPEG, wavelet, and fractal algorithms for lossy compression. (EX1007 at
decompresses the data, recompresses the data more efficiently, and then transmits
the data from the server to the requestor (i.e., client). (EX1007 at 1:57-67, 2:40-45,
3:16-18; see also Fig. 2 (shown below)). Thus, Appelman discloses a recompression
server that compresses data and then transmits data from the server.
60
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
the data by analzying the data within a data field rather than analyzing the data based
which, if any, data encoding techniques are applied to the data. Appelman discloses
61
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
that the recompression server determines from a retrieved requested files name or
(EX1003 at 103; see also supra VI.B). Although Appelman also discloses
determining the attributes or characteristics of the data based on the files name,
the name or the datas attributes; thus when the system recognizes data based on the
actual attributes of the actual data, it does not make such a recognition based on a
described above in VII.A.14.a. At the very least, it would have been obvious to a
POSITA to recognize data types by analyzing the data within the data field rather
than a descriptor because not every data packet would have a easily recognizable
descriptor, depending on the source and format (as discussed above in VII.A.14.a,
62
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
claim element 1[a], and are thus likewise met for the reasons discussed above.
(Supra VII.D.3.a).
among a plurality of data fields in a packet of one or more data blocks where the
selecting is performed at least in part by utilizing a list indicative of data fields and
their associated encoders. First, as noted above in Section VI.A, a data packet
should be construed to include a segregation of data that does not require a specific
internal structure. Thus, a plurality of data fields in a packet of one or more data
blocks is merely a plurality of data fields in one or more data blocks within a larger
files, portions of files, data blocks, etc. (EX1007 at 1:35-37). Although Appelman
does not explicitly state that the data resides within a data field, a POSITA would
63
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
have recognized that data within live data streams, data blocks, etc. is within data
fields because that is the most common and widely adopted method of transmitting
data. (Id.).
type, stating that [m]ore than one recompression algorithm may be used if desired,
algorithms (i.e., encoders) that are associated with specific data fields, such as, for
Lempel-Ziv-Welch algorithms for lossless compression, and MPEG, JPEG, [etc.] for
associated with specific file types, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to add
this list to the Appelman system given that it discloses specific encoders associated
with specific data types and a list is the natural way to store such associations.
(EX1003 at 105).
64
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
of data fields to provide one or more encoded data blocks wherein the size of
encoded data is at least one-fourth the size of the data before the encoding. As
data in each data field within a larger data set. Further, Zusman provides the
additional disclosure that the data blocks contain financial data. (See supra
VII.D.7.a).
compression ratio of over 10:1. The element requiring encoded data be one-fourth
the size of the original data is satisfied for the same reasons, as achieving a
compression ratio of 10:1 would result in the data being one-tenth the size of the
original data, thus being at least one-fourth the size of the data before the
65
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
claim 2, and are thus likewise met for the reasons discussed above. (Supra
VII.D.4.a).
are thus likewise met for the reasons discussed above. (Supra VII.D.6).
are thus likewise met for the reasons discussed above. (Supra VII.D.8).
are thus likewise met for the reasons discussed above. (Supra VII.D.9).
66
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
(emphasis added).
are thus likewise met for the reasons discussed above. (Supra VII.D.11).
are thus likewise met for the reasons discussed above. (Supra VII.D.12).
encoder of Gormish with the system of Appelman for multiple reasons. (EX1003
at 119). First, both inventions specifically deal with the field of data
67
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
1:8-14). Indeed, both Appelman and Gormish discuss many of the same
EX1006 at 2:4-10 with EX1007 at 2:66-3:15). Second, utilizing the state machine
Gormish discloses, [f]inite state machine (FSM) coders have been used in the
prior art to provide efficient entropy coding and thus a POSITA would have been
motivated to use a finite state machine, such as the one disclosed in Gormish, to
claim element 1[a], and are thus likewise disclosed by Appelman for the reasons
68
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
claim element 1[b], and are thus likewise disclosed by Appelman for the reasons
claim element 1[c], and are thus likewise disclosed by Appelman for the reasons
having a compression ratio of over 4:1. (See supra VII.D.14.c). Second, Gormish
(Supra VII.B.3.d). It would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine the state
machine encoder of Gormish with the system of Appelman for the multiple reasons
69
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
claim 2, and are thus likewise disclosed by Appelman for the reasons discussed
discloses that [t]he web proxy server 10' examines each file request from a
requestor 2'[,] the file is retrieved[, is decompressed and recompressed, and] then
forwarded to the requestor 2' (STEP 412). (EX1007 at 3:46-60; see also id. at Fig.
4, below) (emphasis added). Thus the file is transmitted from one single node (the
proxy server) to another single node (the client), the definition of point-to-point
70
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
compressed data at the client. For example, Appelman states that in one
embodiment, [i]f the requested file is pre-compressed (STEP 402), the file is
retrieved in conventional fashion from the provider 4' (STEP 406). The file is then
71
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
embodiment, therefore, the requested data is compressed and sent to the client.
Because compressed data is sent to the client, the client must decompress the data in
order to view or interact with it. (EX1003 at 110). At the very least, it would have
been obvious to a POSITA to modify the Appelman system so that the client
decompresses the compressed data because otherwise the client would have no way
claim 3, and are thus likewise disclosed by Appelman for the reasons discussed
are thus likewise disclosed by Appelman for the reasons discussed above. (Supra
VII.D.10).
72
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
are thus likewise disclosed by Appelman for the reasons discussed above. (Supra
VII.D.12).
Zusman) with the references of the fifth ground (Appelman and Gormish).
discussed in grounds one and two, Gormish provides the disclosures regarding the
state machine of claim 12 (which all of the claims of this ground depend upon) as
discussed in ground II, while Zusman provides the disclosures regarding financial
are thus likewise disclosed by Appelman and Zusman for the reasons discussed
73
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
are thus likewise disclosed by Appelman and Zusman for the reasons discussed
are thus likewise disclosed by Appelman and Zusman for the reasons discussed
are thus likewise disclosed by Appelman and Zusman for the reasons discussed
are thus likewise disclosed by Appelman and Zusman for the reasons discussed
74
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
are thus likewise disclosed by Appelman and Zusman for the reasons discussed
VIII. CONCLUSION
Unified respectfully requests that a trial be instituted and claims 130 of the
204 Patent be cancelled. The Director is authorized to charge for the fees set in 37
C.F.R. 42.15(a) for this Petition for Inter Partes Review, and further authorizes
payment for any additional fees to be charged to McDermott Will & Emery
/Alexander P. Ott/
Alexander P. Ott, Reg. No. 63,110
Ashraf Fawzy, Reg. No. 67,914
Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518
75
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
13,993 words as determined by the Microsoft Office Word 2010 word processing
system used to prepare the petition, excluding the parts of the petition exempted by
37 C.F.R. 42.24(a)(1).
/Alexander P. Ott/
Alexander P. Ott
McDermott Will & Emery
500 N. Capitol St., NW
Washington, DC 20001
1
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 22, 2017, I caused a true and correct copy
of the following to be served via Federal Express on the addresses listed below.
Exhibits for Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,717,204
(EX1001-1014)
/Alexander P. Ott/
Alexander P. Ott
McDermott Will & Emery
500 N. Capitol St., NW
Washington, DC 20001