UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEALS BOARD
`
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-01089
`Patent No.: 6,818,271
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEALS BOARD
`
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-01089
`Patent No.: 6,818,271
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`GLOVER DISCLOSES PCES OPERABLE TO RECEIVE A
`PORTION OF UNCOMPRESSED DATA (CLAIMS 8 AND 32-34)........... 1
`
`A. Data Output From The Subband Unit In Glover Is
`Uncompressed. ...................................................................................... 2
`
`B.
`
`Data Output From The DPCM In Glover Is Uncompressed. ................ 4
`
`II.
`
`GLOVER IN COMBINATION WITH CHU DISCLOSES PCES
`THAT COMPRESS THE UNCOMPRESSED DATA................................... 6
`
`A. Glover In Combination With Chu Discloses PCEs That
`Compress The Portion Of Uncompressed Data Using The PDA
`(Claim 8). ............................................................................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Glover In Combination With Chu Discloses PCEs That Are
`Configured To Compare Symbols With Entries in A History
`Table (Claims 32-34)............................................................................. 9
`
`Glover In Combination With Ranganathan Discloses PDEs
`That Are Operable To Receive Compressed Data Comprising
`Tokens Describing Symbols In Uncompressed Data (Claims 72,
`110). ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`III. GLOVER IN COMBINATION WITH CHU DISCLOSES PCES
`THAT IMPLEMENT PCAS (CLAIMS 8, 32-34), AND GLOVER IN
`COMBINATION WITH RANGANATHAN DISCLOSES PDES
`THAT IMPLEMENT PDAS (CLAIMS 72, 110). ........................................ 11
`
`IV. GLOVER IN COMBINATION WITH CHU DISCLOSES PCES
`THAT OPERATE INDEPENDENTLY (CLAIMS 8, 32-34), AND
`GLOVER IN COMBINATION WITH RANGANATHAN
`DISCLOSES PDES THAT OPERATE INDEPENDENTLY
`(CLAIMS 72, 110)......................................................................................... 14
`
`A.
`
`IV’s Purported “Purpose” Of Glover Is Not Supported By The
`Evidence. ............................................................................................. 15
`
`i
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`B.
`
`IV’s Argument That Glover Does Not Disclose PCEs And
`PDEs That Operate Independently Is Contradicted By The
`Evidence. ............................................................................................. 17
`
`V. GLOVER IN COMBINATION WITH CHU DISCLOSES PCES
`THAT COMPRESS IN A PARALLEL FASHION (CLAIMS 8, 33-
`34), AND GLOVER IN COMBINATION WITH RANGANATHAN
`DISCLOSES PDES THAT DECOMPRESS IN A PARALLEL
`FASHION (CLAIMS 72 AND 110). ............................................................ 22
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.,
`464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................13
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..............................................................................13
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................. 12, 18, 22
`
`Randall Mfg. v. Rea,
`733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................... 12, 22
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`IV’s arguments are solely focused on Glover—IV does not dispute that a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) would have been motivated to
`
`combine Glover with either Chu or Ranganathan, or that Chu and Ranganathan
`
`disclose parallel compression/decompression algorithms. In order to make its
`
`arguments, IV misreads the Challenged Claims in a way not supported by the ’271
`
`patent, and reads a strained purported “purpose” into Glover that is not supported
`
`by its disclosure. IV’s arguments are both legally and technically flawed, and the
`
`differences between Glover and the ’271 patent “are such that the subject matter as
`
`a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made” to a
`
`PHOSITA. 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre-AIA) (emphasis added).
`
`I.
`
`GLOVER DISCLOSES PCES OPERABLE TO RECEIVE A
`PORTION OF UNCOMPRESSED DATA (CLAIMS 8 AND 32-34).
`
`IV’s contention that Glover does not disclose parallel compression engines
`
`(“PCEs”) that “receive a different respective portion of the uncompressed data”
`
`(Ex. 1004 at claim 8) or “receive the uncompressed portion of the data” (Ex. 1004
`
`at claims 32-34) conflates processing data with compressing data. Subband
`
`transform means 4 (“subband unit”) and Differential1 Pulse Code Modulator 102
`
`
`1 Glover alternatively refers to this as Differential, Data, or Digital Pulse Code
`
`Modulation. Ex. 1010 at 2:55-57, 5:1-5, 5:19-21. The parties agree that Glover
`
`implements differential pulse code modulation. Ex. 1026 at 235:7-11.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`(“DPCM”) in Glover both process uncompressed data in some way, but they do
`
`not compress data.
`
`A. Data Output From The Subband Unit In Glover Is Uncompressed.
`
`While IV states in heading IV.2.i that the data output from the subband unit
`
`in Glover is “not uncompressed,” IV never actually contends that the subband unit
`
`compresses data. IV argues instead that the filtered subbands output from the
`
`subband unit in Glover are “not original, unmodified, and uncompressed data, but
`
`rather have been modified and filtered.” Paper 13 at 22 (quoting Ex. 2001 ¶ 78);
`
`see also Paper 13 at 20; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 72, 77. But claims 8 and 32-34 of the ’271
`
`patent only require that the PCEs receive a portion of uncompressed data, not
`
`“original” and “unmodified” data. Ex. 1004 at claims 8, 32-34. IV’s argument is
`
`thus based upon a requirement that is not found in the ’271 patent claims.
`
`IV’s argument is also incorrect technically.
`
` The NASA technical
`
`memorandum co-authored by Dr. Glover that IV relies upon as “an example of
`
`how data is transformed” by the subband unit in Glover undermines IV’s argument
`
`that “modified and filtered” data is equivalent to “compressed” data. Paper 13 at
`
`21-22 (citing Ex. 2005). IV’s expert, Dr. Richardson, opined that the output of the
`
`subband unit would be similar to the subbands in Figure 5 of Dr. Glover’s memo.
`
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 78; Ex. 2005. Dr. Glover’s memo expressly states that after data has
`
`been split into the subbands, “[n]o compression has been achieved yet; the
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`subbanding process prepares the data for compression coding.” Ex. 2005 at 3
`
`(emphasis added); see also Ex. 2020 at 5 (“transforms do not in themselves
`
`produce data compression, but prepare
`
`the data
`
`for quantization and
`
`compression”); Ex. 1025 ¶ 4. This could not be clearer: the subbands output from
`
`the subband unit are not compressed data.
`
`Glover also explained that the subband unit “separates the signal into a
`
`plurality of subbands,” not that it compresses data. Ex. 1010 at 5:17-19; see also
`
`id. at Abstract (the incoming data is “separated into subbands,” after which “it can
`
`be coded”); Ex. 1001 ¶ 57; Ex. 2017 at 43:24-44:12; Ex. 1025 ¶ 3. IV itself admits
`
`that the subband unit separates the incoming data into four data streams, filtered by
`
`frequency. Paper 13 at 20-22; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 76-78. Dr. Richardson stated that
`
`“[t]he information content of band 0 is significantly reduced compared with the
`
`original image.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 56; see also id. ¶ 78. But considering the original
`
`image has been split into four subbands, it is entirely expected that each subband
`
`would have only a portion of the information contained in the original image. That
`
`is not evidence of compression. Ex. 2017 at 59:12-61:7 (the subband unit “doesn’t
`
`change the size of the data”). The ’271 patent expects this, as the PCEs each
`
`receive a portion of uncompressed data. Ex. 1004 at claims 8, 32-34.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`B. Data Output From The DPCM In Glover Is Uncompressed.
`
`The portion of uncompressed data output from the subband unit of Glover in
`
`subband 0 is put through an additional processor, the DPCM. Ex. 1010 at Fig. 1,
`
`5:19-21. IV contends that the differential pulse code modulation (“DPC
`
`modulation”) performed by the DPCM “is a well-known form of compression,”
`
`such that the data received by the quantizer in subband 0 is not uncompressed.
`
`Paper 13 at 22; Ex. 2001 ¶ 80. But IV offers nothing other than conclusory, ipse
`
`dixit statements from its expert in support of this contention. See id.
`
`Dr. Richardson cites to paragraphs 59-62 of his declaration as allegedly
`
`demonstrating
`
`that DPC modulation
`
`is a form of compression, but,
`
`in
`
`Dr. Richardson’s own words,
`
`those paragraphs only
`
`illustrate how DPC
`
`modulation “makes Band 0 more similar to the other Bands.” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 59-62,
`
`80. There is nothing in the action of allegedly making subband 0 more similar to
`
`the other subbands that equates to compressing the data in subband 0.
`
`DPC modulation is a common processing step used in compression systems
`
`that can serve to enhance the amount of compression of the system. Ex. 1025 ¶ 5.
`
`DPC modulation itself, however, is not a form of compression. Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 6-7;
`
`Ex. 2017 at 111:4-112:8. The DPCM in Glover uses a predictor equation to
`
`perform DPC modulation. Ex. 1010 at 5:1-5. As Dr. Richardson himself describes
`
`it, this predictor outputs difference values so that “there is less variation in the
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`output value from an expected mean.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32. Glover expressly states that
`
`“[t]he quantizer is applied to subbanded image data that has not been scaled or
`
`rounded”—i.e., the output from the DPCM, to which quantization is subsequently
`
`applied, has not been compressed. Ex. 1010 at 3:23-33. The DPCM transforms
`
`the data in a signal by outputting difference values, but it does not compress the
`
`data or reduce the amount of information in the signal. Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 5-7.
`
`Dr. Richardson claims that DPC modulation “reduces the information in a
`
`signal.” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32, 73. Not only does Dr. Richardson admit that that is not
`
`true for all images, this statement is misleading. Ex. 1026 at 241:4-242:12; Ex.
`
`2023 at 68:19-21, 71:6-9 (Dr. Richardson testifying that reducing the information
`
`content does not necessarily compress the data). Dr. Richardson does not actually
`
`say that the reduction in the information of a signal is a reduction in the size of the
`
`signal, Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32, 73, and, in any event, DPC modulation does not reduce the
`
`information of a signal. Ex. 1025 ¶ 7. Even if there are situations in which the
`
`DPCM reduces the amount of “information” in subband 0, Glover recognizes that
`
`this
`
`is not compression, as Glover distinguishes DPC modulation from
`
`compression. It is only after DPC modulation and quantization that “an adaptive
`
`Huffman coder or Lempel-Ziv based coder is used to perform compression.” Ex.
`
`1010 at 5:13-15.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`Most of IV’s argument about the DPCM is an effort to show that the DPCM
`
`is necessary in Glover, not that it actually compresses data. See Paper 13 at 22-27.
`
`IV’s argument is both irrelevant and incorrect. As IV acknowledges, Glover
`
`expressly discloses a scenario in which the compression algorithms are applied
`
`directly to the subbanded data, without first applying the DPCM (or quantizers).
`
`Ex. 1010 at 1:63-2:5; Paper 13 at 23; Ex. 2001 ¶ 73; see also Ex. 1025 ¶ 8. Claim
`
`1 of Glover does not even include a DPCM. Ex. 1010 at claim 1. IV’s argument
`
`also relies heavily on Dr. Richardson’s purported model of Glover applied to a
`
`sample image (the Lenna or Lena image). This model is of only one image, when
`
`Glover discloses that its system will have different results for different images. Ex.
`
`1010 at Table II; Ex. 1025 ¶ 9. Dr. Richardson admits that his model is “illustrative
`
`in nature” and “not intended to be an exact implementation of Glover.” Ex. 2001
`
`¶ 46; see also Ex. 2023 at 15:13-20. IV’s heavy reliance on this model is
`
`misplaced.
`
`II. GLOVER IN COMBINATION WITH CHU DISCLOSES PCES THAT
`COMPRESS THE UNCOMPRESSED DATA.
`
`The arguments in sections IV.3, IV.4, and IV.5 of IV’s Patent Owner
`
`Response are all variations on a theme—that certain claim limitations are not
`
`disclosed by Glover in combination with Chu or Ranganathan because the
`
`uncompressed data is processed and compressed prior to reaching the parallel
`
`compression algorithm (“PCA”) in the PCE. See generally Paper 13 at 27-32.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`These arguments are both technically wrong and based upon unduly limited
`
`interpretations of the claim language.
`
`A. Glover In Combination With Chu Discloses PCEs That Compress
`The Portion Of Uncompressed Data Using The PDA (Claim 8).
`
`According to IV, the PCA disclosed by the combination of Glover and Chu
`
`“would not compress uncompressed data” because the uncompressed data in
`
`Glover—uncompressed video signal 2—is processed by the subband transform,
`
`DPCM, Quantizer, Run-Length coder, and Huffman coder before reaching the
`
`Lempel-Ziv (“LZ”) coder. Paper 13 at 27-29. IV’s argument fails because it
`
`assumes that the PCE must compress an uncompressed portion of the
`
`uncompressed data using the PCA. Paper 13 at 28-29. That requirement is found
`
`nowhere in claim 8.
`
`Claim 8 requires PCEs that are configured to “compress the different
`
`respective portion of the uncompressed data” using the PCA. Ex. 1004 at claim 8
`
`(emphasis added). The ’271 patent expressly contemplates that each PCE will
`
`receive only a portion of the uncompressed data, and thus that there is some
`
`processing done to divide the uncompressed data into portions before the each
`
`portion of data is provided to and compressed by a PCE. Ex. 1004 at claim 8, Fig.
`
`1 (illustrating that the uncompressed data goes through “splitting logic” before
`
`entering the PCEs). IV’s contention that each PCE must compress the
`
`uncompressed data (i.e., uncompressed video signal 2 in Glover) using the PCA is
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`inconsistent with the claim and teachings of the ’271 patent. Claim 8 requires only
`
`that each PCE compress a respective portion—whether that portion is compressed
`
`or uncompressed—of the uncompressed data.
`
`Because claim 8 does not require that the portion of the uncompressed data
`
`be an uncompressed portion of the uncompressed data, it is irrelevant whether the
`
`components that process that portion of data prior to the PCA also compress the
`
`data. The PCA of each PCE in Glover combined with Chu is the sequence of Run-
`
`Length, Huffman, and parallel LZ compression algorithms. Paper 2 at 28-29. The
`
`PCE created by the combination of Glover and Chu is “operable to ... compress the
`
`different respective portion of the uncompressed data” because the PCA—the
`
`combination of Run-Length, Huffman, and parallel Lempel-Ziv algorithms—
`
`compresses “the different respective portion of the uncompressed data” (i.e., the
`
`subband) received by the PCE. Paper 2 at 27-29; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 142-144, 148-150;
`
`Ex. 1025 ¶ 11. Whether the processing components (subband transform, DPCM,
`
`and quantizers) that come before the PCA compress “the different respective
`
`portion of the uncompressed data” is irrelevant. See Ex. 1004 at claim 8.
`
`Even if claim 8 did require that the PCA compress an uncompressed portion
`
`of the uncompressed data, IV’s argument fails. The subband transform and DPCM
`
`do not compress data, as explained above. See supra Section I; Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 3-8.
`
`The quantizers do not compress data either. Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 12-14; Ex. 2017 at 139:5-
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`25; Ex. 2022 at 40:19-41:21. Glover distinguishes quantization from compression,
`
`stating that it is only after DPC modulation and quantization that “an adaptive
`
`Huffman coder or Lempel-Ziv based coder is used to perform compression.” Ex.
`
`1010 at 5:13-15, 5:24-27, claim 1 (“quantizers for mapping” and “coders for
`
`compressing”). And contrary to IV’s misstatement, the Run-Length and Huffman
`
`algorithms are part of the PCA. Paper 2 at 28-29.
`
`B. Glover In Combination With Chu Discloses PCEs That Are
`Configured To Compare Symbols With Entries in A History Table
`(Claims 32-34).
`
`IV’s argument that Glover in combination with Chu does not disclose PCEs
`
`configured to “compare the plurality of symbols with entries in the history table” is
`
`analogous to its arguments about whether the PCAs compress the uncompressed
`
`data and suffers from similar flaws. See Paper 13 at 29-30.
`
`IV does not dispute that, in compressing the “received uncompressed portion
`
`of the data,” the PCE of Glover combined with Chu compares a plurality of
`
`symbols with entries in a history table, where those entries are also symbols. See
`
`id.; Paper 2 at 22-23, 33-34. IV’s only argument is that the compared symbols are
`
`not the plurality of symbols that represent the uncompressed data, because the data
`
`has been compressed by a Quantizer, Run-Length coder and Huffman coder before
`
`the PCA compares it to entries in a history table. Paper 13 at 29-30. But even
`
`after it has been processed by the Quantizer, Run-Length coder, and Huffman
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`coder, the data present in each subband is still in the form of symbols, which
`
`represent the uncompressed portion of data received by the PCE. Ex. 1025 ¶ 15. If
`
`the data compressed by the LZ coder no longer represented the uncompressed data,
`
`there would be no way to reverse the process and retrieve the original image.
`
`C. Glover In Combination With Ranganathan Discloses PDEs That Are
`Operable To Receive Compressed Data Comprising Tokens
`Describing Symbols In Uncompressed Data (Claims 72, 110).
`
`IV’s argument that Glover in combination with Ranganathan does not
`
`disclose parallel decompression engines (“PDEs”) operable to receive a “different
`
`respective portion of the compressed data [that] comprises tokens each describing
`
`one or more of the symbols in the uncompressed data” again stems from its
`
`arguments about whether the PCAs compress the uncompressed data, and is based
`
`upon a misinterpretation of the claim language. See Paper 13 at 30-32.
`
`Claims 72 and 110 recite that the PDEs are configured to receive a portion
`
`of the compressed data, where the compressed data comprises “a compressed
`
`representation of uncompressed data” and “tokens each describing one or more
`
`symbols in the uncompressed data.” Ex. 1004 at claims 72, 110. IV contends that
`
`the tokens of the compressed data in Glover combined with Ranganathan do not
`
`“describe one or more symbols in the uncompressed data” because the
`
`uncompressed data was “transformed, compressed, and processed” prior to the LZ
`
`coder, and the tokens “at best” describe the input to the LZ coder. Paper 13 at 31-
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`32. This argument presumes that the tokens of the ’271 patent must do more than
`
`“describe” the symbols in the uncompressed data, they must directly correlate to
`
`the exact symbols of the uncompressed data. IV offers no justification for such a
`
`narrow reading of the claims.
`
`IV does not dispute that the “Data In” of Figure 2 of Glover is compressed
`
`data, that it is a representation of the uncompressed data, or that it is comprised of
`
`tokens. See Paper 13 at 30-32. Those tokens “describe” one or more symbols in
`
`the uncompressed data so that the compression process can be reversed and the
`
`uncompressed data—a video image in Glover—can be retrieved. Ex. 1025 ¶ 15.
`
`III. GLOVER IN COMBINATION WITH CHU DISCLOSES PCES THAT
`IMPLEMENT PCAS (CLAIMS 8, 32-34), AND GLOVER IN
`COMBINATION WITH RANGANATHAN DISCLOSES PDES THAT
`IMPLEMENT PDAS (CLAIMS 72, 110).
`
`In its Petition, IBM explained that a PHOSITA would have been motivated
`
`to combine Glover and Chu, and would have used the parallel implementation of a
`
`LZ compression algorithm taught by Chu as the “LZ coder” in Glover. Paper 2 at
`
`25, 27-28. A PHOSITA would also have been motivated to combine Glover and
`
`Ranganathan, and would have used the parallel implementation of a LZ
`
`decompression algorithm taught by Ranganathan as the “LZ decoder” in Glover.
`
`Paper 2 at 48-49, 51-52. IV does not dispute that Chu and Ranganathan disclose
`
`parallel LZ algorithms, or that a PHOSITA would be motivated to combine Glover
`
`with Chu and Ranganathan. See Paper 13 at 33-36. There is thus no real dispute
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`that the combination of Glover with Chu discloses PCEs that implement PCAs, or
`
`that the combination of Glover with Ranganathan discloses PDEs that implement
`
`PDEs.
`
`In an attempt to manufacture a dispute, IV raises a number of irrelevant
`
`issues. Contrary to IV’s suggestion, Glover does not need to use the words
`
`“parallel,” “parallel compression,” “concurrently,” or any variations of those terms
`
`to make it obvious to a PHOSITA to implement PCAs in the PCEs, and PDAs in
`
`the PDEs, of Glover. Paper 13 at 33-34. In an obviousness analysis, “it will be
`
`necessary for a court to look to . . . the background knowledge” of a PHOSITA.
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-18 (2007); Randall Mfg. v. Rea,
`
`733 F.3d 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013). A PHOSITA may use that knowledge to
`
`apply a known technique to improve a device, or combine familiar elements
`
`according to known methods, each of which would have been obvious. KSR, 550
`
`U.S. at 416-17.
`
`Although IV does not dispute that a PHOSITA would have been motivated
`
`to combine Glover with Chu and Ranganathan, it suggests that using parallel
`
`algorithms with Glover would be an application of hindsight because Glover does
`
`not mention parallel compression. Paper 13 at 33-34. Glover’s disclosure,
`
`however, would have been understood by a PHOSITA as describing a flexible,
`
`inexpensive, and fast architecture. Ex. 2017 at 171:17-174:5; Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 17-18.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`In any event, a motivation “does not have to be found explicitly in the prior art.”
`
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The question is whether a
`
`PHOSITA, faced with the problem sought to be solved by the inventor of the ’271
`
`patent, would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Glover with his or
`
`her knowledge that parallel processing increases speed. See id. at 988. The ’271
`
`patent says that its goal was a system and method “for the reduction of system
`
`bandwidth and improved efficiency.” Ex. 1004 at 2:36-41. A PHOSITA would
`
`have been motivated to improve the efficiency of Glover by using parallel
`
`algorithms, rendering the Challenged Claims obvious. See DyStar Textilfarben
`
`GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368-69 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2006) (“an implicit motivation to combine exists” when the combination
`
`results in a faster or more efficient process).
`
`IBM’s position in separate proceedings that a PHOSITA would have
`
`pipelined the coders and decoders in Glover is in no way inconsistent with IBM’s
`
`obviousness combinations in this proceeding. Ex. 1025 ¶ 19. It is also irrelevant.
`
`What is at issue here are the arguments IBM presented in its Petition in this
`
`proceeding, relating to a set of claims with different elements than in prior
`
`proceedings. IV does not dispute that Chu and Ranganathan disclose parallel LZ
`
`algorithms. When those LZ algorithms are used in the LZ coder and decoder of
`
`Glover, the combination discloses PCEs that implement PCAs and PDEs that
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`implement PDAs. Whether “the various process stages would be performed
`
`serially” has no bearing on that combination or the conclusion that the combination
`
`discloses the claim elements. See Paper 13 at 35-36.
`
`IV’s obviousness analysis is also suspect because IV and Dr. Richardson
`
`performed the analysis as of the wrong date. IBM established in its Petition that
`
`the ’271 patent is only entitled to claim priority to its filing date, January 11, 2002,
`
`because that application is the only one that even arguably supports the claim
`
`element that the PCEs “operate[] independently.” Paper 2 at 10-11; Ex. 1015;
`
`Ex. 1016 at 32-33; Ex. 1017 at 2; Ex. 1018 at 8; Ex. 1021 at 2. IV and
`
`Dr. Richardson performed their analysis as of the original January 1999
`
`application, even though that application does not support the claims of the ’271
`
`patent. Paper 13 at 3; Ex. 2001 ¶ 22; Ex. 1021 at 5 (disclosure of separate history
`
`buffers in January 2002 application allegedly support “independently”); see
`
`generally Ex. 1028 (no disclosure of separate history buffers). IV’s attempt to cure
`
`this deficiency in a new footnote is ineffective. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 11.
`
`IV. GLOVER IN COMBINATION WITH CHU DISCLOSES PCES THAT
`OPERATE INDEPENDENTLY (CLAIMS 8, 32-34), AND GLOVER
`IN COMBINATION WITH RANGANATHAN DISCLOSES PDES
`THAT OPERATE INDEPENDENTLY (CLAIMS 72, 110).
`
`This Panel previously rejected IV’s attempt to argue that Glover, in
`
`combination with Chu or Ranganathan, does not disclose PCEs and PDAs that
`
`operate independently. Paper 8 at 17-20. IV attempts another bite at the apple by
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`giving a new and strained interpretation of the “purpose” of Glover in support of
`
`its argument. See Paper 13 at 36-52. This has no more merit than IV’s first
`
`attempt. IV’s new arguments that Glover does not disclose PCEs and PDEs that
`
`operate independently are similarly meritless and should be rejected.
`
`A. IV’s Purported “Purpose” Of Glover Is Not Supported By The
`Evidence.
`
`IV argues the purpose of Glover is “to ‘provide an apparatus and method for
`
`compressing video image data into bands and subbands and grouping the data
`
`whereby a dictionary based compression scheme may be utilized.’” Paper 13 at 42
`
`(quoting Ex. 1010 at 2:63-66). As an initial matter, this “purpose” is not at all
`
`inconsistent with IBM’s explanation that “[t]he purpose of Glover is to split the
`
`video signal into subbands so that the subbands can be processed in parallel.”
`
`Paper 2 at 27 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 135-36); Ex. 1025 ¶ 32. There is no dispute that
`
`Glover discloses splitting the video signal into subbands and processing the
`
`subbands in parallel compression engines.
`
`IV and Dr. Richardson seize upon Glover’s reference to “grouping the data”
`
`at column 2, lines 63-66 as a basis to recharacterize the purpose of Glover as
`
`providing similarity across the four subbands, and, specifically, to make subband 0
`
`more similar to subbands 1 through 3. See Paper 13 at 11, 13, 15, 42-47. But
`
`making the subbands more similar to each other is not a purpose of Glover. Ex.
`
`1025 ¶¶ 36-37. Glover discloses “grouping” the data within a subband, not across
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`the subbands. Data output from a Run-Length coder, as used in each subband of
`
`Glover, is often referred to as “grouped” data because a Run-Length coder encodes
`
`runs of data values as a single data value and count. Ex. 1025 ¶ 34; Ex. 1027 at 11.
`
`Dr. Richardson admitted that Glover’s Run-Length coder “groups together runs of
`
`data” in a single subband, not across subbands. Ex. 1026 at 234:4-14.
`
`IV and Dr. Richardson further attempt to support their mischaracterization
`
`and redefinition of Glover’s purpose by citing to a statement in Glover that “there
`
`is enough similarity in the grouped signals to use a compression technique like the
`
`Lempel-Ziv technique.” Ex. 1010 at 5:31-33; see Paper 13 at 11-13. They ignore
`
`the text immediately preceding this statement, however, which says that each of
`
`the Run-Length coders “group the data into values thereby producing grouped
`
`signals at 120, 220, 320 and 420.” Ex. 1010 at 5:27-30. In other words, the Run-
`
`Length coder in each subband groups the data in that subband, as Run-Length
`
`coders do, to produce a grouped signal that can then be compressed by the LZ
`
`coder in each subband. Id. at 5:27-33, Fig. 1; Ex. 1025 ¶ 34. Similarly, Glover
`
`explains that Run Length decoders “ungroup” the information in each subband to
`
`produce “ungrouped subbands at 155, 255, 355, and 455.” Ex. 1010 at 6:16-18,
`
`Fig. 2; Ex. 1025 ¶ 35.
`
`IV also uses circular logic when it claims this purported “purpose” of Glover
`
`shows that the PCEs and PDEs in Glover would share resources. According to IV,
`
`16
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`a PHOSITA would understand that Glover “would use a single, shared lookup
`
`table for Huffman coding/decoding across the subbands and a single, shared
`
`dictionary for Lempel-Ziv coding/decoding across the subbands” because the
`
`subbands “each have a similar statistical profile.” Paper 13 at 46-47; Ex. 2001
`
`¶¶ 102-03, 122-23. But the reason that IV contends that Glover would have similar
`
`statistical profiles across subbands is because statistical and dictionary based
`
`compression “rely on having the largest data set possible with similar statistical
`
`behavior.” Paper 13 at 12; Ex. 2001 ¶ 33. In other words, IV presumes that the
`
`algorithms in Glover would have a large data set that shares resources to support
`
`its argument that Glover’s purpose is to produce similar statistical profiles across
`
`bands, and then argues that because Glover produces similar statistical profiles
`
`across bands it must share resources.
`
`IV’s argument that Glover does not disclose PCEs and PDEs that operate
`
`independently is based on its manufactured “purpose” of Glover. Because that
`
`manufactured “purpose” is not supported by the evidence, IV’s arguments based
`
`upon that “purpose” must fail.
`
`B. IV’s Argument That Glover Does Not Disclose PCEs And PDEs That
`Operate Independently Is Contradicted By The Evidence.
`
`IV once again focuses on details about a specific implementation of Glover
`
`instead of answering the controlling question of law as to what Glover discloses to
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Response: IPR2015-01089
`
`
`a PHOSITA in view of his or her background knowledge. See KSR, 550 U.S. 417-
`
`18.
`
`The PCEs and PDEs in Glover each have their own inputs and outputs, and
`
`neither the figures nor the text in Glover make any reference to the PCEs or PDEs
`
`sharing resources. Paper 2 at 27, 51; Ex. 1010 at 5:16-39, 6:4-25, Figs. 1 and 2;
`
`Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 138-40, 271-73. Independent processing of data streams was well
`
`known in the art. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 140, 273; Ex. 1022 at 4:4-34; Paper 8 at 18-19. An
`
`implementation of Glover with PCEs and PDEs that operate independently would
`
`have minimal, if any, impact on the storage and circuit area required. Ex. 1025
`
`¶¶ 28-29. A PHOSITA would combine the disclosure of Glover with this
`
`background knowledge to conclude that the PCEs and PDEs in Glover operate
`
`independently. See Ex. 2017 at 100:7-14 (Glover’s Figure 1 discloses “four
`
`independent parallel compression engines, each of them implementing a parallel
`
`compression algorithm with the traditional pipelining architecture. It’s very
`
`efficient, it’s very cost effective, very, very well known.”), 170:5-171:16.
`
`Further supporting a PHOSITA’s conclusion that the PCEs and PDEs in
`
`Glover operate independently are the disclosures in Glover that the subbands are
`
`optimized for compression of that subband. Gl
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
