PTAB

IPR2018-00883

Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

Title: Systems and Methods for Video and Audio Data Storage and Distribution
Brief Description: The ’535 patent discloses systems and methods for adaptively compressing data by selecting an appropriate asymmetric compressor from a plurality of algorithms. The selection is based on determined parameters of a data block to balance factors like compression speed, ratio, and data type before storing the compressed data.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Dye (Patent 7,190,284).
Core Argument:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Dye anticipates each limitation of independent claim 15. Dye disclosed a method to "determine a compression mode" based on parameters like data type or address range, which met the "determining a parameter" step. Dye then selected a compression algorithm from a plurality of options, including various Lempel-Ziv ("LZ") algorithms, which are asymmetric, satisfying the "selecting one or more asymmetric compressors" step. Finally, Dye disclosed selectively compressing the data with the chosen algorithm and storing it in memory, meeting the final two steps of claim 15. Dependent claim 22 was met because Dye explicitly disclosed applying compression to audio and video data.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Dye (Patent 7,190,284).
Core Argument:
- Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative to anticipation, Petitioner argued that to the extent Dye was found not to explicitly disclose every element, the claims were obvious over Dye alone. Specifically, if determining a parameter was not explicitly taught, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) implementing Dye's system to first determine the parameters (e.g., data type) before selecting a compressor based on those same parameters.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in determining these parameters as it is a conventional and necessary prerequisite for the selection step taught by Dye. Petitioner also argued it would have been obvious to use an asymmetric compressor for Dye's lossless mode to achieve desirable performance benefits, such as faster decompression.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Dye (Patent 7,190,284) and Appelman (Patent 6,112,250).
Core Argument:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that Dye provided the foundational system for selecting and applying compression, while Appelman supplied the missing or obvious-to-add details. Appelman taught a system that selects the best compression algorithm from a plurality of options, including asymmetric algorithms like Lempel-Ziv and MPEG, based on the data type. This combination explicitly taught selecting from multiple asymmetric compressors for different data types.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Dye and Appelman to improve Dye's video compression capabilities. While Dye taught applying lossy compression to video, it did not specify an algorithm. Appelman taught using MPEG, a widely adopted, standardized, and asymmetric algorithm for video. A POSITA would be motivated to add Appelman’s MPEG compression to Dye's system to make it more efficient and compatible with other standardized systems.
- Expectation of Success: The combination would yield predictable results, as both references address the same problem of selecting an appropriate compressor based on data parameters. Adding a well-known algorithm like MPEG to Dye's framework would be a straightforward software addition.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Dye (Patent 7,190,284) and Riddle (Patent 6,175,856).
Core Argument:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground used Dye as the primary reference and supplemented its teachings with Riddle. Riddle disclosed a system for teleconferencing that selects and ranks available codecs (including the asymmetric H.261 standard) based on network parameters like throughput/bandwidth. This provided an additional, specific parameter for selecting a compressor.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the references to enhance Dye's system with a more sophisticated method for selecting a compressor for video data, particularly for streaming or teleconferencing. Dye's system already had a goal of reducing bandwidth requirements, and Riddle taught a specific method for achieving this by determining network throughput and ranking codecs accordingly. Adding Riddle's teachings would improve Dye's ability to handle real-time video data efficiently.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both systems share a similar architecture and goal. Riddle's technique of using throughput as a selection parameter is a known method for optimizing data streams and would be a complementary and predictable improvement to Dye's system.

Petitioner asserted that the term "asymmetric compressors" should be construed to mean "a compressor in which the execution time for the compression and decompression routines differ significantly." This construction, based on the ’535 patent’s express definition, was central to its arguments as it allowed prior art compression schemes like Lempel-Ziv, MPEG, and H.261 to be categorized as "asymmetric" and thus meet the claim limitation.

Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) was unwarranted. Although prior art references Dye and Riddle were cited during prosecution of the ’535 patent, Petitioner asserted that the Examiner did not rely on or substantively discuss them. Therefore, the arguments in the petition were not cumulative to those considered by the Examiner, as the art was not the "basis for rejection" during the original examination.

Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, and 23 of the ’535 patent as unpatentable.