Rackspace US Inc v. Realtime Data LLC

1. Case Identification

• Patent #: 9,116,908
• Filed: June 16, 2017
• Petitioner(s): Rackspace US, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Realtime Data LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-4, 6, 21, 22, and 25

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Data Compression and Decompression Systems
• Brief Description: The ’908 patent relates to systems for data compression and decompression. The disclosed technology purports to achieve benefits, such as reducing data transmission time over low-bandwidth links, by using multiple encoders and selecting a particular encoder based on a comparison of its compression ratio to a predefined threshold.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 21, 22, and 25 are obvious over [Franaszek](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2017-01196/doc/1004) in view of [Osterlund](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2017-01196/doc/1003).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Franaszek (Patent 5,870,036) and Osterlund (Patent 5,247,646).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Franaszek teaches the core elements of the challenged claims, including a data compression system that uses a plurality of compression mechanisms and selects the optimal one for each data block. However, Petitioner contended that Franaszek does not explicitly teach the limitation that "compression and storage occurs faster than" storing the data in its uncompressed form. To supply this missing element, Petitioner cited Osterlund, which discloses a compression device interposed in the data path that uses wide data buses and direct memory access techniques to achieve an overall faster rate of data storage and retrieval.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that both Franaszek and Osterlund address the common problem of improving data storage applications through compression. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Osterlund’s known acceleration techniques with Franaszek’s multi-algorithm system to achieve the predictable benefits of both: enhanced compression ratios for diverse data types and faster storage speeds.
  • Expectation of Success: The petition argued that the field of data compression is a predictable art. Because compression algorithms and data transfer rates can be readily modeled, simulated, and tested, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in integrating Osterlund's speed-enhancing features into Franaszek's system to achieve the desired faster-than-storage result.

Ground 2: Claims 2-4 and 6 are obvious over Franaszek in view of Osterlund and [Fall](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2017-01196/doc/1005).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Franaszek (Patent 5,870,036), Osterlund (Patent 5,247,646), and Fall (Patent 5,991,515).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built on the Franaszek/Osterlund combination to address dependent claims 2-4 and 6, which add limitations related to storing and using a "data descriptor" to identify the compression technique used. Petitioner first argued that Franaszek’s disclosed "compression method description" (CMD) already meets this limitation. As an alternative, Petitioner asserted that if Franaszek’s CMD was deemed insufficient, Fall explicitly teaches a compressor that stores a descriptor indicating the compression type along with the compressed data in a memory buffer. Fall's teachings were also cited for retrieving the descriptor and compressed block from memory for decompression.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that Fall addresses the same technical problems as Franaszek in similar ways. A POSITA, seeking to ensure the Franaszek/Osterlund combination included an explicit mechanism for the compressor to store and retrieve its own descriptors, would have been motivated to look to analogous art like Fall. Incorporating Fall’s descriptor handling was presented as a simple substitution of one known technique for another to achieve a predictable result.

Ground 3: Claims 1, 6, 21, 22, and 25 are obvious over Osterlund in view of Franaszek.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Osterlund (Patent 5,247,646) and Franaszek (Patent 5,870,036).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground inverted the primary and secondary references from Ground 1. Petitioner argued that Osterlund provides the primary system—a data accelerator that achieves "faster than" storage but uses only a single compression technique. Franaszek was then introduced to supply the missing elements of using multiple, different compression techniques and selecting the most appropriate one for each data block.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would modify Osterlund’s single-technique system with Franaszek's multi-algorithm selection process to gain the well-known and significant benefit of improved compression efficiency, particularly when processing a data stream with diverse file types (e.g., text and images). This combination was framed as an obvious design choice to improve the performance of the Osterlund system.
  • Expectation of Success: Given that improving compression ratios is a primary goal in the field, a POSITA would have reasonably expected that adding the well-understood multi-algorithm approach of Franaszek to Osterlund's accelerated storage architecture would successfully yield a system with both high speed and high efficiency.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claims 2-4 over Osterlund in view of Franaszek and Fall, relying on arguments similar to those presented in Ground 2.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that the claim limitation "compression and storage occurs faster than the first and second data blocks are able to be stored on the memory device in uncompressed form" should not be afforded patentable weight.
• The basis for this position was that the phrase merely recites an intended result of the claimed system without providing any corresponding structure or specific steps to achieve that result. Petitioner contended this was an attempt to claim a result rather than the invention that produces it.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4, 6, 21, 22, and 25 of Patent 9,116,908 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.