Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Data, LLC, IPR2017-02129, (PTAB Sept. 22, 2017)

IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
DOCKET NO.: 098850-0018

Filed on behalf of Unified Patents Inc.
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
Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518

Unified Patents Inc.
1875 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, D.C., 20009
Tel: (214) 945-0200
Email: jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________________________
UNIFIED PATENTS INC.

Petitioner
v.
REALTIME DATA, LLC

Patent Owner
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
____________________________
METHODS FOR ENCODING AND DECODING DATA

____________________________
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW

IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
I. MANDATORY NOTICES................................................................................................. 1
A. Real Party-in-Interest 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(1) ...................................................... 1
B. Patent Owner and Related Matters 37 CFR 42.8(b)(2)..................................... 1
C. Counsel and Service Information............................................................................ 3
II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING...................................................... 3
III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED........................................ 4
A. Prior Art Patents and Publications .......................................................................... 4
B. Statutory Grounds of Challenge.............................................................................. 5
IV. U.S. Patent 8,717,204 ......................................................................................................... 6
A. Summary ................................................................................................................. 7
B. Prosecution History............................................................................................... 10
V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................................................. 10
VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................................. 11
A. data packet (Claims 4, 14) ................................................................................. 11
B. descriptor (Claims 11, 21) ................................................................................. 12
C. recognizing and analyzing (Claims 1, 11, 12, 21) ......................................... 13
VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................................. 14
A. Ground I: Claims 1-11 and 22-30 are obvious in view of CPS and
Zusman .................................................................................................................. 14
1. Summary of Compression Proxy Server: Design and

Implementation (CPS) ........................................................................... 14
2. Summary of U.S. Patent 5,987,432 to Zusman et al. (Zusman) ............ 17
3. Motivation to Combine CPS and Zusman ................................................ 19
-i-
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
4. Independent Claim 1 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................. 20
5. Dependent Claim 2 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................... 25
13. Dependent Claim 10 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................. 32
15. Independent Claim 22 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman ................ 34
B. Ground II: Claims 12-13, 18, and 20 are obvious in view of CPS
and Gormish .......................................................................................................... 40
1. Summary of U.S. Patent 5,912,636 to Gormish et al.

(Gormish) .............................................................................................. 40
2. Motivation to Combine 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
4. Dependent Claim 13 is obvious in view of CPS and Gormish ................. 44
C. Ground III: Claims 14-17, 19, and 21 are obvious in view of CPS,
Zusman, and Gormish ........................................................................................... 45
1. Summary of Ground and Motivation to Combine .................................... 45
2. Dependent Claim 14 is obvious in view of CPS, Zusman, and

Gormish..................................................................................................... 46

Gormish..................................................................................................... 46

Gormish..................................................................................................... 46

Gormish..................................................................................................... 47

Gormish..................................................................................................... 47

Gormish..................................................................................................... 47
D. Ground IV: Claims 1-11 and 22-30 are obvious in view of

Appelman and Zusman .......................................................................................... 47
1. Summary of U.S. Patent 6,385,656 to Appelman (Appelman) ............. 47
2. Motivation to Combine Appelman and Zusman ....................................... 49
3. Independent Claim 1 is obvious in view of Appelman and

Zusman ...................................................................................................... 50
4. Dependent Claim 2 is obvious in view of Appelman and

Zusman ...................................................................................................... 57

Zusman ...................................................................................................... 58
-iii-
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
Zusman ...................................................................................................... 59

Zusman ...................................................................................................... 59

Zusman ...................................................................................................... 59

Zusman ...................................................................................................... 60

Zusman ...................................................................................................... 60

Zusman ...................................................................................................... 60

Zusman ...................................................................................................... 60

Zusman ...................................................................................................... 61

Zusman ...................................................................................................... 63

Zusman ...................................................................................................... 66

Zusman ...................................................................................................... 66

Zusman ...................................................................................................... 66

Zusman ...................................................................................................... 66

Zusman ...................................................................................................... 66

Zusman ...................................................................................................... 67

Zusman ...................................................................................................... 67
-iv-
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
Zusman ...................................................................................................... 67
E. Ground V: Claims 12-13, 18, and 20 are obvious in view of

Appelman and Gormish......................................................................................... 67
1. Motivation to Combine Appelman and Gormish...................................... 67

Gormish..................................................................................................... 68

Gormish..................................................................................................... 71

Gormish..................................................................................................... 72

Gormish..................................................................................................... 73
F. Ground VI: Claims 14-17, 19, and 21 are obvious in view of

Appelman, Zusman, and Gormish ......................................................................... 73
1. Summary of Ground and Motivation to Combine .................................... 73
2. Dependent Claim 14 is obvious in view of Appelman, Zusman,

and Gormish .............................................................................................. 73

and Gormish .............................................................................................. 74

and Gormish .............................................................................................. 74

and Gormish .............................................................................................. 74

and Gormish .............................................................................................. 74

and Gormish .............................................................................................. 75
VIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 75
-v-
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
Initial Exhibit List
Exhibit Description
1001 U.S. Patent 8,717,204 to Fallon et al. (the 204 Patent)
1002 Prosecution History of the 204 Patent
1003 Declaration of Albert Wegener (including Appendices A-C)
Compression Proxy Server: Design and Implementation

1004
(CPS)
1005 U.S. Patent 5,987,432 to Zusman et al. (Zusman)
1006 U.S. Patent 5,912,636 to Gormish et al. (Gormish)
1007 U.S. Patent 6,385,656 to Appelman (Appelman)
Complaint, Realtime Data IP, LLC d/b/a IXO v. Barracuda

1008
Networks, Inc., No. 6:17-cv-00120 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2017)
1009 Excerpts from the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent 7,400,274
1010 Excerpts from the File History of U.S. Control No. 95/001,544
Kirk Spencer, et al., Effects of MPEG Compression on the

Quality and Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Echocardiography
1011
Studies, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF
ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY, Vol. 13, Issue 1, pp. 51-57 (Jan. 2000).
Mark R. Nelson, LZW Data Compression, DR. DOBB'S J., Vol.

1012
14, Issue 10, pp. 29-36 (October 1989).
Nikolaidis, Nikos & Pitas, Ioannis, Copyright Protection Of

Images Using Robust Digital Signatures, IEEE International
1013
Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, Vol. 4,
pp. 2168-2171 (May 7, 1996).
1014 Declaration of Scott Bennet (including Appendices A-G)
-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
Inc. (Unified or Petitioner) respectfully requests institution of inter partes
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,
the filing of this petition, or the conduct of any ensuing trial.
B. Patent Owner and Related Matters 37 CFR 42.8(b)(2)

Realtime Data, LLC (Realtime or Patent Owner) is the assignee of
record for the 204 Patent. Realtime has filed the suits identified below asserting
the 204 Patent.
Name Case No. District Filed

Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. 6-17-cv-00046 E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2017
Oracle America, Inc.
Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. 6-17-cv-00084 E.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2017
Echostar Corporation et al
Realtime Data LLC v. Acronis, Inc. 6-17-cv-00118 E.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2017
Array Networks, Inc.
Barracuda Networks, Inc.
1
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204

Carbonite, Inc. et al
Circadence Corporation
CommVault Systems, Inc. et al
Exinda Inc.
NETGEAR, Inc.
Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. 6-17-cv-00198 E.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2017
Riverbed Technology, Inc.
Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. 1-30-cv-00800 D. Del. June 21, 2017
Array Networks Inc.
Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. 1-30-cv-00893 D. Del. July 5, 2017
Barracuda Networks, Inc.
Realtime Data LLC v. CommVault 1-30-cv-00925 D. Del. July 10, 2017
Systems, Inc. et al
Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. 1-30-cv-11279 D. Mass. July 12, 2017
Acronis, Inc.
Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. 1-30-cv-00972 D. Del. July 18, 2017
EVault, Inc.
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
under 35 U.S.C. 325(d). Additionally, none of the arguments raised in this
petition were previously considered by the PTAB during reexamination of related
patents.

Petition for Inter Partes Review by IPR2017-01710 PTAB June 30, 2017
2
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204

CommVault Systems, Inc.
Petition for Covered Business CBM2017-00061 PTAB June 30, 2017
Method Patent Review by
CommVault Systems, Inc.
C. Counsel and Service Information

Alexander P. Ott (Reg. No. 63,110) will be the lead counsel. Ashraf A.
Fawzy (Reg. No. 67,914) and Jonathan Stroud (Reg. No. 72,518) will act as back-up
counsel. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this
Petition.
Unified consents to e-mail service at aott@mwe.com,
IPdocketMWE@mwe.com, afawzy@unifiedpatents.com, and
jonathan@unifiedpatents.com. Counsel for Petitioner may be addressed at 500
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.,
20009, Tel: (202) 871-0110.
II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING

Petitioner certifies that the patent for which review is sought is available for
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
III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED

This Petition is supported by the declaration of Albert Wegener (EX1003)
and requests the Board cancel claims 130 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103.
(35 U.S.C. 314(a); Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2)).
A. Prior Art Patents and Publications

Petitioner relies upon the following patents and printed publications:
1. Chi-Hung Chi, et al., Compression Proxy Server: Design and
Implementation, Proceedings of USITS' 99: The 2nd USENIX
Symposium on Internet Technologies & Systems (October 11-14,
1999), (CPS) (EX1004) was publically available no later than
March 2000, as is shown by both its 1999 copyright date and the
ACM Digital Library index record. (See EX1011, Appendix 1c). This
is confirmed by the accompanying declaration of academic librarian
Scott Bennet. (EX1014 (Bennet Decl.) at 46). CPS is thus prior art
to the 204 Patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
2. U.S. Pat. No. 6,385,656 to Appelman (Appelman) (EX1007) was
filed on August 10, 1999 and issued on May 7, 2002. Appelman is
prior art to the 204 Patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(2).
4
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
3. U.S. Patent 5,987,432 to Zusman et al. (Zusman) (EX1005) was
filed on December 29, 1997 and issued on November 16, 1999.
Zusman is prior art to the 204 Patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and
(e)(2).
4. U.S. Patent 5,912,636 to Gormish et al. (Gormish) (EX1006) was
filed on September 26, 1996 and issued on June 15, 1999. Gormish is
prior art to the 204 Patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
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
arguments or ground presented herein were previously presented. None of the
other references relied upon in this petition have been previously considered by the
USPTO.
B. Statutory Grounds of Challenge

This Petition presents the following grounds:
Ground I Obviousness of claims 111 and 22-30 by CPS in view of Zusman
Ground II Obviousness of claims 1213, 18, and 20 by CPS in view of

Gormish
Ground III Obviousness of claims 1417, 19, and 21 by CPS in view of

Zusman and Gormish
Ground IV Obviousness of claims 111 and 22-30 by Appelman in view of

Zusman
5
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
Ground V Obviousness of claims 1213, 18, and 20 by Appelman in view of

Gormish
Ground VI Obviousness of claims 1417, 19, and 21 by Appelman in view of

Zusman and Gormish
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).
IV. U.S. PATENT 8,717,204

The 204 Patent issued from U.S. App. No. 14/035,712 filed on September
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
(AIA) and thus is a pre-AIA patent.
A. Summary
The 204 Patent is titled Methods for Encoding and Decoding Data, and
relates to selecting a data encoder based on data content, compressing data to a
particular compression ratio, and broadcasting the compressed data (EX1001). It
claims systems and method for providing accelerated transmission of data, such
as financial trading data, [] over communication channel using data compression
and decompression to provide data broadcast feeds. (Id. at 1:27-37). Figure 1,
shown below, illustrates one embodiment. (Id. at 6:55-57, Fig. 1).
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
In this embodiment, the claimed system 10 comprises content 11 (i.e.,
broadcast data) and data server 12 associated with a service-provider of financial
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,
the system uses a state machine to perform compression. (Id. at 9:1-29).
Ultimately, [t]he compressed data is transmitted over the communication channel
24 via a communication stack using any suitable protocol (e.g., [] TCP/IP, UDP,
or any real-time streaming protocol). (Id. at 9:24-29).
8
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
Specifically, the 204 Patent claims content-dependent compression and
decompression where the system determines the type of data and selects
compression schemes (e.g., encoders) accordingly. (Id. at 13:42-56, see also
11:21-13:41). The Patent discloses that, [b]ecause a multitude of different data
types may be present within a given input data stream, or data block, [the system]
advantageously applies the input data stream to each of a plurality of different
encoders to, in effect, generate a plurality of encoded data streams. (Id. at 14:1-
13). Thus, the final compressed data stream is generated by selectively
combining blocks of the compressed streams output from the plurality of
encoders. (Id. at 14:15-20).
Claim 1 of the 204 Patent is representative of the purported inventive
method and includes: (i) recognizing a characteristic of the data, (ii) selecting an
encoder based on the characteristic, (iii) compressing the data to a compression
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
using a state machine, wherein the compression and transmission of the
compressed data occurs faster than merely transmitting the original uncompressed
data would have. The only other independent claim, Claim 22, also requires the
same steps as claim 12.
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
(EX1002, 204 Prosecution History), filed on September 4, 2013. In prosecution
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
more extensive prosecution and inter partes reexamination proceedings; these
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).
V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART

As set forth in the declaration of Albert Wegener, a person of ordinary skill
in the art of the 204 Patent would have a degree in Management Information
Systems, Computer Science, or Electrical Engineering, or equivalent professional
system development experience, plus one year of work experience with
compression in a network computing environment. A higher level of education
may make up for less experience and vice versa. (EX1003 at 33).
10
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

Claim terms of an unexpired patent in inter partes review are given the
broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification. (37 C.F.R.
42.100(b)). Any term not explicitly construed below should be interpreted in
accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest reasonable
construction.
A. data packet (Claims 4, 14)

The term data packet, as used in the 204 Patent claims, should be
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
[i]f there is an internal structure to packets, such as a header [. . .] additional
global states could be added. (EX1001 at 10:48-53). In other words, the
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
there is an internal structure), such as a header, and therefore implies that an
internal structure is an optional feature of a data packet.
Further, in the reexam of a related patent sharing the same specification
(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
previous Board construction. (See also EX1001 at 3:61-63, 10:51-53). Thus,
petitioner proposes a data packet is at least broad enough to include a
segregation of data that does not require a specific internal structure.
B. descriptor (Claims 11, 21)

The term descriptor, as used in the 204 Patent claims, should be
construed as a recognizable word, phrase, or alphanumeric character used to
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
compression type descriptor is defined as any recognizable data token or descriptor
that indicates which data encoding technique has been applied to the data.
(EX1001 at 16:9-12). It goes on to note that [t]he data compression type
descriptor may possess values corresponding to null (no encoding applied), a
single applied encoding technique, or multiple encoding techniques. (Id. at 17:9-
14; see also id. at 22:17-34).
Thus, the 204 Patent defines the term descriptor to refer to some
recognizable segment of data (i.e., a word, phrase, or alphanumeric character)
which denotes which, if any, data encoding techniques are applied to the data.
12
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
C. recognizing and analyzing (Claims 1, 11, 12, 21)

The terms recognizing and analyzing should be given their broadest
reasonable constructions and should not be construed to require an active step of
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
analyzing refer to an active step of directly analyzing data within data
blocks. (EX1010 at 46, 79). The Board rejected the proposed narrowed
construction and analyzed the claims based on their broadest reasonable
construction. (Id. at 10-13, 94-95). The Board held that references that disclose
selecting an encoder based on the data type of the data-to-be-compressed
necessarily teach some form of recognition or analysis as taught by the Patent
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
analyzing in this proceeding should follow the Boards construction in the
reexamination.
13
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
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)
that performs automatic data compression to reduce network bandwidth
consumption and web access latency significantly. (EX1004 at 1). CPS discloses
an embodiment where the compression server receives data from a web server,
analyzes the data to determine which compression algorithm to use, compresses
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).
The compression server of CPS is able to perform at least three
classifications of web data compression, including:
(1) whole file compressionwhere the compressor needs to work on an
entire file;
(2) data block compressionwhere the compressor compresses and
decompresses individual data blocks; and
(3) data stream compressionwhere the compressor treats data as a
continuing stream and, as soon as it receives some data, compresses/decompresses
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
object sizes to determine which algorithm to use. (Id. at 4, 7).
Within that framework, CPS discloses an exemplary sample selection of
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
ordinary skill to define. (Id. at 4) (emphasis in original). Of the sample
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.
at Table 2 (shown below)).
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
authors estimated the improvement of web access latency due to data
compression (EX1004 at 9) by testing the disclosed system where [t]he access
latency of the web object and the bandwidth consumption were measured [for
compressing and transmitting data vs transmitting uncompressed data. (EX1004
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%-
30%. (Id. at 9; see also id. at Fig. 5).
16
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
2. Summary of U.S. Patent 5,987,432 to Zusman et al. (Zusman)

Zusman describes [a] central ticker plant system for distributing financial
market data where the system receives ticker feed data from many exchanges
throughout the world, processes and formats [i.e., compresses] the received data
and then distributes or broadcasts the data to regional customers. (EX1005,
Abstract). Figure 1, shown below, is a functional block diagram showing an
exemplary financial market data system embodiment. (Id. at 5:24-42, Fig. 1).
17
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
Zusman discloses that the system receives message, organizes the
transaction messages into data blocks and assigns block sequence numbers in each
feed, performs data compression and transmits the resulting broadcast feeds data
to multiple clients by way of the wellknown [sic] Transmission Control
Protocol/lnternet working Protocol (TCP/IP) communications standard. (Id. at
10:8-13, 7:63-67).
Zusman also discloses that the financial market data includes trading
information for a plurality of securities [including:] stocks (equities), bonds,
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,
and (ii) broadcasting the compressed data in sequence to multiple recipients.
3. Motivation to Combine CPS and Zusman

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 (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 116).
Additionally, both the CPS and Zusman systems/methods are directed to receiving,
processing, compressing, and transmitting data to clients (where Zusman focuses on
financial data), and thus a POSITA would have expected the predictable benefits
described above as both references are analogous art. (Id.).
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
brokers seeking access to updated financial markets informationone of ordinary
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
similar transmission/compression system that, as claimed, receives [financial] data
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].
(EX1005 Abstract) (emphases added).
4. Independent Claim 1 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman

a) A method for processing data, the data residing in a data
field, comprising:
To the extent the preamble is deemed limiting, CPS discloses a system for
processing data (e.g., compressing and streaming web data). For example, it
discloses system architecture design and support for automatic web data
compression and data block streaming of web information. (EX1004 at
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.,
EX1005 at 13:16-20, 14:7-12, 16:5-7). It would have been obvious to combine
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
to be limiting, this element is obvious in view of CPS and/or Zusman.
b) recognizing any characteristic, attribute, or parameter of the

data
CPS discloses recognizing certain characteristics, attributes, or parameters of
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
data type(s), both the HttpStateData->need_compress and StoreEntry-
>can_compress variables will be set. (EX1004 at 7; see also id. at 4-5). Thus,
CPS discloses recognizing data types (i.e., a characteristic, attribute, or parameter
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
compress such data. (Id. at 4).
c) selecting an encoder associated with the recognized

characteristic, attribute, or parameter of the data
CPS discloses selecting an encoder for compressing the received data based
on the recognized object type or object size (i.e., characteristic, attribute, or
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 compression algorithm based on whether the data/object type is a gif
Object[], text/octet-stream Object[], or jpeg Object[]. (Id. at 4-5).
Alternatively, CPS discloses choosing a compression algorithm (or not compressing
data at all) based on the size of a file within the data. (Id. at 4). CPS discloses
selecting a gif-to-jpeg compression algorithm if the recognized gif object size is
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,
attribute, or parameter of the data).
d) compressing the data with the selected encoder to create

compressed data wherein the compressing achieves a
compression ratio of over 10: 1 on the data; and
CPS discloses that after selecting an appropriate compression algorithm (i.e.,
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
embodiment [] [h]igh compression ratios are obtained if the frequency distribution
of characters in most contexts is highly skewed. (EX1001 at 10:23-32) (emphasis
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
fall below targeted thresholds. (EX1001 at 14:21-36) (emphasis added). Further,
the 204 Patent even contemplates not compressing data at all if every encoder fails
to achieve a level of compression that exceeds an a priori specified minimum
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).
(EX1004 at 4). Additionally, in previous litigations, Realtime has admitted that
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
ratios over 10:1. (E.g., EX1008 at 206).
e) broadcasting the compressed data to a plurality of clients

Zusman explicitly discloses a transmission/compression system that receives
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
[i.e., a plurality of clients]. (EX1005 Abstract) (emphases added).
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).
5. Dependent Claim 2 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman
a) The method of claim 1, wherein the compressing and

broadcasting occur over a time period which is less than a
time to broadcast the data in uncompressed form.
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. Indeed, CPS discloses that the authors estimated the
improvement of web access latency due to data compression [i.e., measuring the
time for compressing and broadcasting compressed data vs. broadcasting
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
improves latency by 10%-30% over transmitting non-compressed data, CPS
discloses this element.
a) The method of claim 1, further comprising: decompressing

the compressed data, and wherein the compressing, the
broadcasting, and the decompressing occur over a time period
which is less than a time to broadcast the data in
uncompressed form
CPS discloses an embodiment where data is compressed by the system,
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
required to perform compression and decompression in the Squid proxy server.
(Id. at 9, Fig. 3) (emphasis added).
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
decompression overhead is less than 1% of the web access latency (even on an
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
transmitting non-compressed data (id. at 9; see also supra VII.A.5.a.), CPS
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
data. (E.g., EX1004 at 4, 5, 8).

a) The method of claim 1, wherein multiple messages are
contained in a data packet.
CPS discloses processing/compressing data blocks where each data block
may contain multiple messages/object. (EX1004 at 3). CPS also discloses
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
be construed to include a segregation of data that does not require a specific
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).
Further, Zusman also discloses processing data packets wherein multiple
messages are contained in a data packet as it explicitly discloses processing data
blocks that contain multiple messages. (EX1005 at 10:8-13). Thus, the
combination of Zusman and CPS discloses this limitation.
28
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
a) The method of claim 1, wherein the data comprises financial

data transmitted in sequence.
Zusman discloses transmitting financial data in sequence, teaching [a] central
ticker plant system for distributing [i.e., transmitting] financial market data.
(EX1005 Abstract) (emphasis added). Zusman discloses that its broadcast feeds
subsystem 62 maintains the block sequence number and a transmitted broadcast
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
rapid distribution of error-free financial market data without substantial
accumulation, processing and distribution delays. (Id. at 4:24-29). Thus, Zusman
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
financial data. (EX1003 at 93).

a) The method of claim 1, wherein the data field includes stock
information.
Zusman discloses that the financial data processed by the claimed system is in
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
plurality of securities [such as] stocks.).
a) The method of claim 1, wherein the data field includes

options information.
Zusman discloses that the financial data processed by the claimed system is in
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
plurality of securities [such as] options.).

a) The method of claim 1, wherein the compressing is lossy.
CPS discloses a method of processing data, as described in claim 1 (see supra
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
a) The method of claim 1, wherein the broadcasting comprises:

broadcasting the compressed data utilizing a User Datagram
Protocol (UDP).
Broadcasting the compressed data of claim 1, while utilizing a UDP, would
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]
Transmission Control Protocol/lnternet working Protocol (TCP/IP) communications
standard to perform [the] broadcast. (EX1005 at 7:63-67). It would have been
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
advantage of the predictable benefits of using UDP. (Id.).
31
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
a) The method of claim 1, wherein the compressing is

performed on a server and wherein the compressed data is
broadcast from the server.
CPS discloses that the compression of data is performed on a server and then
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
compression and then transmitting the compressed data. Further, as explained in
VII.A.4.e, supra, Zusman discloses broadcasting the compressed data to multiple
clients and thus discloses the additional limitation of broadcasting (as opposed to
point-to-point transmission).

a) The method of claim 1, wherein the recognizing includes
analyzing the data within the data field and excludes
analyzing based on a descriptor that is indicative of the
recognized characteristic, attribute, or parameter of the data
within the data field.
CPS discloses a method of compressing data wherein the system recognizes
the type of data by analyzing the data within a data field rather than analyzing the
data based on a descriptor. As explained in VI.B, the term descriptor, should be
construed as any recognizable word, phrase, or alphanumeric character used to
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
compression proxy, we added a field need_compress in the _HttpStateData
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
descriptor. (EX1003 at 82).
Further, Zusman discloses that because financial market data includes trading
information for a plurality of securities and because for each security class, many
different securities are traded on many different exchanges, a message validation
subsystem analyzes and classifies messages according to predetermined security
classes or types. (EX1005 at 9:35-50). To determine the type of security
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
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to recognize data types
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
recognizable descriptor (as discussed above, citing EX1005 at 9:35-50). (EX1003 at
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.
15. Independent Claim 22 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman

a) A method for processing data, the data residing in data fields,
comprising
The limitations of claim element 22[a] are substantially similar to those of
claim element 1[a], and are thus likewise met for the reasons discussed above.
(Supra VII.A.4.a).
b) selecting an encoder associated with a data field from among

a plurality of data fields in a packet of one or more data blocks
of financial data in sequence, the selecting being performed at
least in part by utilizing a list indicative of data fields and their
associated encoders
CPS discloses selecting a compression algorithm (i.e., encoder) associated
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
field Content-Type to determine if the data type is supported by one of the
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
systems compression algorithms, then it selects the appropriate algorithm and
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
data field type.
Additionally, 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 data set
(i.e., a segregation of data), which is disclosed by CPS, as discussed directly above.
(EX1003 at 89).
35
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
Finally, as explained in VII.A.8.a, Zusman discloses the additional
limitation of processing data blocks of financial data in sequence. Thus, the
combination of CPS and Zusman discloses this limitation.
c) encoding data in each data field from among the plurality of

data fields to provide one or more encoded data blocks of
financial data, wherein the size of encoded data in each data
field from among the plurality of data fields is at least one-
fourth the size of the data before the encoding; and
CPS discloses compressing (i.e., encoding) data in each data field from among
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
blocks be comprised of financial 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
d) broadcasting the encoded one or more data blocks in

sequence to a plurality of clients, wherein the encoding and the
broadcasting occur over a period of time which is less than a
time to broadcast the data in each data field from among the
plurality of data fields in an unencoded form.
The limitations of claim element 22[d] are substantially similar to those of
claim 2, and are thus likewise met for the reasons discussed above. (Supra
VII.A.5.a).
a) The method of claim 22, wherein the encoded one or more

data blocks of financial data include date information.
First, CPS discloses encoding data blocks. (See supra VII.A.4.d). Next,
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
logic. (EX1005 at 16:32-35). These contents can include a timestamp, creation
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.

a) The method of claim 22, wherein the encoded one or more
data blocks of financial data include sequence information.
First, CPS discloses encoding data blocks. (See, e.g., supra VII.A.4.d).
Next, Zusman discloses that data blocks of financial data that include sequence
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 logic. (EX1005 at 16:32-35). These contents can include a
timestamp and/or symbol sequence number. (Id. at 16:33-39). Both the
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
combination of Zusman and CPS discloses this limitation. (EX1003 at 93).

The limitations of claim 25 are substantially similar to those of claim 4, and
are thus likewise met for the reasons discussed above. (Supra VII.A.5).

38
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204


a) The method of claim 22, wherein the encoding comprises:
lossless encoding the data in each data field from among the
plurality of data fields.
CPS discloses a method of processing data in data fields, as described in claim
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
field for certain object types.


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
apparatus for compression and decompression. (EX1006 at 3:9-10). Gormish
discloses using a finite state machine comprising, in one embodiment, a channel
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. (Id. at 2:53, Fig. 1B).
2. Motivation to Combine CPS and Gormish

It would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine the 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
predictable benefit of increased speed for coding. (EX1006 at 2:11-32; see
also EX1003 at 117). And third it would be more efficient, as Gormish
discloses: [f]inite state machine (FSM) coders have been used in the prior art to
provide efficient entropy coding. (EX1006 at 1:55-57). Thus, a POSITA would
have been motivated to use a finite state machine, such as the one disclosed in
Gormish, to perform the coding (compressing and decompressing) in the CPS
system. (EX1006 at 1:55-56; see also EX1003 at 117).
3. Independent Claim 12 is obvious in view of CPS and Gormish

comprising
claim element 1[a], and are thus likewise disclosed by CPS for the reasons discussed
above. (Supra VII.A.4.a).

data
The limitations of claim element 12[b] are substantially similar to those of
claim element 1[b], and are thus likewise disclosed by CPS for the reasons
discussed above. (Supra VII.A.4.b).
41
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204

The limitations of claim element 12[c] are substantially similar to those of
claim element 1[c], and are thus likewise disclosed by CPS for the reasons discussed
above. (Supra VII.A.4.c).
d) compressing the data with the selected encoder utilizing at

least one state machine to provide compressed data having a
compression ratio of over 4:1; and
First, CPS discloses compressing data to provide compressed data having a
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
machine] encoder. (Id. at 2:53, Fig. 1B).
42
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
encoder of Gormish with the system of CPS, for at least the three reasons noted
above in Section VII.B.2. (See also EX1003 at 117).
e) point-to-point transmitting the compressed data to a client;

wherein the compressing and the transmitting occur over a
period of time which is less than a time to transmit the data in
an uncompressed form.
The limitations of claim element 12[e] are substantially similar to those of
claim 2, and are thus likewise disclosed by CPS for the reasons discussed above.
(Supra VII.A.5). The only additional element, point-to-point transmitting the
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
point transmitting) wherein, as discussed in VII.A.11, the compressing and the
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
limitation. (EX1003 at 88).
4. Dependent Claim 13 is obvious in view of CPS and Gormish

the compressed data at the client; and
CPS discloses the additional limitation of decompressing the compressed data
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
automatically. (EX1004 at 2) (emphasis added). In this embodiment, therefore, the
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
while it is in a compressed form. (EX1003 at 88).
44
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
b) wherein the compressing, the transmitting, and the

decompressing occur over a period of time that is less than the
time to transmit the data in uncompressed form.
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
reference introduced in ground II (Gormish). CPS generally provides the
disclosures regarding the compression system as discussed in grounds I and II.
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
Zusman provides the disclosures regarding financial data and information as
discussed in ground I. (EX1003 at 116). The motivation to combine CPS and
Zusman is found above in VII.A.4, while the motivation to add Gormish as a
third reference is found above in VII.B.2.
2. Dependent Claim 14 is obvious in view of CPS, Zusman, and Gormish

are thus likewise disclosed by CPS and Zusman for the reasons discussed above.
(Supra VII.A.7).

(Supra VII.A.8).

(Supra VII.A.9).
46
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204

(Supra VII.A.10).

(Supra VII.A.12).

(Supra VII.A.14).
D. Ground IV: Claims 1-11 and 22-30 are obvious in view of

Appelman and Zusman
1. Summary of U.S. Patent 6,385,656 to Appelman (Appelman)
Appelman describes a recompression server that automatically
decompresses selected pre-compressed data streams and recompresses the
decompressed data to a greater degree than the original pre-compressed data.
(EX1007 at 1:57-60). In embodiments, the recompression server may compress
requested but previously uncompressed files. (Id. at 1:66-67). Figure 2, shown
47
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
below, illustrates one embodiment of Appelman, and shows a recompression server
20 that includes a web proxy server 10, a decompressor 24, and a recompressor
26. (Id. at Fig. 2).
Appelman describes a method where a file requested from the provider 4
passes through the recompression server 20 and the web proxy server 10
determines if the file is pre-compressed. (Id. at 2:52-55). As it notes, [i]n one
embodiment, the recompression server determines from a request whether a
requested file is pre-compressed. In another embodiment, the recompression server
determines from a retrieved requested files name or attributes whether the file is
48
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
pre-compressed. (Id. at 1:60-65). If the file is compressed, it is decompressed by
the decompressor 24 and then recompressed by the recompressor 26; if the file is
not compressed, it is sent directly to the recompressor to be compressed. (Id. at
2:55-57, 3:32-33). In embodiments, rather than recompressing every compressed
file or compressing every previously uncompressed file, additional testing may be
done to decide whether the inventive process described above provides a time
savings in transmission over simply retransmitting a requested file. (Id. at 18-23).
The system thus only compresses data if doing so saves time versus just
retransmitting a requested file.
Appelman discloses using different compression algorithms for different
data types to provide better compression and lists potential compression
algorithms to use for specific data types (such as graphics files, gifs, or files
requiring lossless or lossy compression). (Id. at 3:1-15). It notes that any
algorithm or combination of algorithms can be employed. (Id.).
2. Motivation to Combine Appelman and Zusman

It would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine the Appelman and
Zusman systems to broadcast the compressed data of the Appelman system to
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.).
Specifically, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the
Appelman system with Zusman because it would be much more efficient to
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.).
3. Independent Claim 1 is obvious in view of Appelman and Zusman

a) A method for processing data, the data residing in a data
field, comprising:
Appelman and Zusman disclose a method for processing data within a data
field. Appelman discloses a network server for automatically decompressing
selected pre-compressed data streams and recompressing the decompressed data to
a greater degree than the original pre-compressed data or [o]ptionally, the
recompression server may compress requested but previously uncompressed files.
(EX1007 at 1:8-14, 1:66-67). Appelman further discloses that the decompressor
50
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
and compressor work on live data streams, collections or archives of 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
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. (EX1003 at 100).
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-
7). The motivation to combine Appelman and Zusman is explained above in
Section VII.D.2. Thus, to the extent that the preamble is found to be limiting, this
element is obvious in view of Appelman and Zusman.

data
Appelman discloses recognizing characteristics, attributes, or parameters of
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.,
a characteristic of the data]. (EX1007 at 1:55-65). Appelman further discloses that
[w]hether a file is pre-compressed or not may be determined by examination of the
file extension (for example, .GIF or .TIF), or key bytes within a file header, or any
other characteristic or attribute of the file. (Id. at 4:3-6). Figure 5, highlighted
below, discloses Appelman analyzing each file at step 500, as described above, to
51
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
recognize whether it is compressed or not (i.e., a characteristic of the data). (Id. at
Fig. 5).
52
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
Alternatively, in the embodiment where Appelman is compressing previously
uncompressed files (rather than uncompressing and then recompressing the files
more efficiently), additional testing may be done to decide whether the inventive
process described above provides a time savings in transmission over simply
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
limitation in two different manners.

Appelman discloses selecting an encoder based on the recognized
characteristic, attribute, or parameter of the data (which as noted directly above,
could be whether the file is already compressed or whether the data can be
efficiently compressed and transmitted). In one embodiment, Appelman discloses
that [t]he recompressor 26 re-compresses the decompressed data using any
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
compression for different data types. (EX1007 at 2:66-3:3) (emphasis added).
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
graphics files is a variable-loss (which includes no loss) compression algorithm
called GT.)). Indeed, Appelman discloses using different sets of compression
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).
Thus, Appelman discloses selecting a compression algorithm (i.e., encoder)
associated with the recognized file type (i.e., characteristic, attribute, or parameter of
the data).
d) compressing the data with the selected encoder to create

compressed data wherein the compressing achieves a
compression ratio of over 10:1 on the data; and
Appelman discloses this limitation because it discloses compressing data using
several known compression algorithms (or combinations of algorithms), such as
Huffman Coding [] and Lempel-Ziv-Welch algorithms for lossless compression,
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.,
MPEG, Lempel-Ziv-Welch, and JPEG algorithms) achieves a compression ratio of
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
1); Lempel-Ziv-Welch algorithms were well-known to be able to achieve
compression ratios over 10:1 (EX1003 at 105; see also, e.g., EX1012 at 1); and
JPEG algorithms were well-known to be able to achieve compression ratios of 24:1
(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
to achieve a compression ratio of over 10:1.
Whats more, Appelman discloses using any algorithm that provides a better
compression ratio than the original compression. (EX1007 at 2:66-31). It
describes using the finite group of known compression algorithms to achieve an
optimal result. Thus, to the extent the Board holds that this limitation is not
explicitly disclosed by Appelman, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to use
the most efficient and highest-compression ratio-producing of these disclosed
55
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
encoders (which achieve a compression ratio of over 10:1 on the data, as explained
above). (EX1003 at 106).
e) broadcasting the compressed data to a plurality of clients
Appelman discloses a recompression server that receives compressed data,
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
Further, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine the Appelman
system with Zusman (which explicitly discloses broadcasting the data to multiple
clients (EX1005, Abstract) so that the compressed data is broadcast to a plurality of
clients. (EX1003 at 118). The motivation to combine is discussed above in
Section VII.D.2.
4. Dependent Claim 2 is obvious in view of Appelman and Zusman

a) The method of claim 1, wherein the compressing and
broadcasting occur over a time period which is less than a
time to broadcast the data in uncompressed form.
Appelman discloses a method where the system decompresses, recompresses,
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
decompressing could only speed up the process). (EX1003 at 109).
Appelman discloses if a requested compressed file is small, the time required
to decompress it and recompress it may exceed the time required to transfer it
unchanged. Thus, the system tests whether decompressing, compressing and
transmitting offers a time-savings over merely sending the original file, and the
system only processes the file (i.e., decompress/recompress) if there is a time-
savings. (EX1007 at 4:23-51). Appelman, therefore, discloses this limitation.
57
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204

the compressed data, and wherein the compressing, the
broadcasting, and the decompressing occur over a time period
which is less than a time to broadcast the data in
uncompressed form
Appelman discloses an embodiment where the system receives compressed
data, decompresses the data, recompresses the data more efficiently than it was
originally compressed, and then transmits the recompressed data to the client.
(EX1007 at 1:57-67; see also Fig. 2 (shown below)).
Appelman explicitly discloses that the system performs decompression,
compression, and transmission in an amount of time that is less than merely
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
side of the network/internet after compressing previously uncompressed files and
transmitting the compressed files, in view of the fact that some requestors do not
have a decompression capability commensurate to that of the decompressor of the
Appelman invention. (EX1003 at 110). The decompressor [24] already exists in
the invention and the invention already determines whether compression time +
decompression time + broadcasting time is less than time to broadcast data in
uncompressed form. Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to incorporate
the decompressor [24], or add a second decompressor, to the client side of the
network architecture to decompress the compressed messages after they are
broadcast. (Id.).

Zusman discloses this limitation as explained above in VII.A.7.


59
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204

a) The method of claim 1, wherein the compressing is lossy.

Appelman discloses using a compression algorithm wherein the compression
is lossy. Appelman discloses that [o]ther [compression] algorithms, or
combinations of algorithms, may be used, such as Huffman Coding, Lempel-Ziv '77,
Lempel-Ziv '78, and Lempel-Ziv-Welch algorithms for lossless compression, and
MPEG, JPEG, wavelet, and fractal algorithms for lossy compression. (EX1007 at
3:3-15) (emphasis added). Thus, Appelman discloses lossy compression.

Zusman renders this limitation obvious as explained above in VII.A.12.

a) The method of claim 1, wherein the compressing is
performed on a server and wherein the compressed data is
broadcast from the server.
Appelman discloses a recompression server that receives compressed data,
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
Zusman provides the additional disclosure of broadcasting the data as
explained above in VII.D.3.e.
a) The method of claim 1, wherein the recognizing includes

analyzing the data within the data field and excludes
analyzing based on a descriptor that is indicative of the
recognized characteristic, attribute, or parameter of the data
within the data field.
Appelman discloses recognizing attributes, characteristics, or parameters of
the data by analzying the data within a data field rather than analyzing the data based
on a descriptor. As explained in VI.B, the term descriptor, should be construed
as any recognizable word, phrase, or alphanumeric character used to indicate
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
attributes whether the file is pre-compressed. (EX1007 at 1:55-65) (emphasis
added). By determing the proper decompression and recompression coding based on
a files attributes, Appelman necessarily discloses recognizing the data attributes.
(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,
which would be a descriptor, it discloses that it makes said determination based on
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
descriptor. (EX1007 at 1:55-65).
Further, Zusman provides additional disclosures to meet this limitation, as
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,
citing EX1005 at 9:35-50). (EX1003 at 82).
62
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
14. Independent Claim 22 is obvious in view of Appelman and Zusman

comprising
claim element 1[a], and are thus likewise met for the reasons discussed above.
(Supra VII.D.3.a).
b) selecting an encoder associated with a data field from among

a plurality of data fields in a packet of one or more data blocks
of financial data in sequence, the selecting being performed at
least in part by utilizing a list indicative of data fields and their
associated encoders
Appelman discloses selecting an encoder associated with a data field from
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
data set (i.e., a segregation of data), which is disclosed by Appelman. (EX1003 at
100). As explained above in Section VII.D.3.a, Appelman discloses that the
decompressor and compressor work on live data streams, collections or archives of
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.).
Next, Appelman discloses selecting an encoder associated with a data field
type, stating that [m]ore than one recompression algorithm may be used if desired,
to provide better compression for different data types. (EX1007 at 2:66-3:3)
(emphasis added). Appelman discloses choosing from a set of compression
algorithms (i.e., encoders) that are associated with specific data fields, such as, for
example, using a compression algorithm called GT to compress data fields
comprising graphics files. (Id. at 3:3-15). Similarly, [o]ther algorithms, or
combinations of algorithms, may be used, such as Huffman Coding [and/or]
Lempel-Ziv-Welch algorithms for lossless compression, and MPEG, JPEG, [etc.] for
lossy compression depending on the data field being compressed. Although
Appelman does not explicitly disclose there is a list of compression algorithms
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
Further, as explained in VII.D.7.a., Zusman discloses the additional
limitation of processing data blocks of financial data in sequence. Thus, the
combination of CPS and Zusman discloses this limitation.
c) encoding data in each data field from among the plurality of

data fields to provide one or more encoded data blocks of
financial data, wherein the size of encoded data in each data
field from among the plurality of data fields is at least one-
fourth the size of the data before the encoding; and
Appelman discloses encoding data in each data field from among the plurality
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
explained above in Section VII.D.3.a and VII.D.14.b, Appelman discloses encoding
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).
As explained above in Section VII.D.3.d, Appelman discloses achieving 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
encoding. (EX1003 at 104).
65
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
d) broadcasting the encoded one or more data blocks in

sequence to a plurality of clients, wherein the encoding and the
broadcasting occur over a period of time which is less than a
time to broadcast the data in each data field from among the
plurality of data fields in an unencoded form.
The limitations of claim element 22[d] are substantially similar to those of
claim 2, and are thus likewise met for the reasons discussed above. (Supra
VII.D.4.a).

Zusman discloses this limitation as explained above in IX.A.15.


are thus likewise met for the reasons discussed above. (Supra VII.D.6).


66
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
b) The method of claim 22, wherein the encoding comprises:

lossless encoding the data in each data field from among the
plurality of data fields.
Appelman discloses using a compression algorithm wherein the compression
is lossless. Appelman discloses that [o]ther [compression] algorithms, or
combinations of algorithms, may be used, such as Huffman Coding, [] and
Lempel-Ziv-Welch algorithms for lossless compression. (EX1007 at 3:3-15)
(emphasis added).


E. Ground V: Claims 12-13, 18, and 20 are obvious in view of

Appelman and Gormish
1. Motivation to Combine Appelman and Gormish

encoder of Gormish with the system of Appelman for multiple reasons. (EX1003
at 119). First, both inventions specifically deal with the field of data
compression and decompression systems. (EX1006 at 1:7-9; see also EX1007 at
67
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
1:8-14). Indeed, both Appelman and Gormish discuss many of the same
compression and decompression topics, such as utilizing Huffman coding (which is
also mentioned as an option in the 204 Patent (EX1001 at 3:41-46). (Compare
EX1006 at 2:4-10 with EX1007 at 2:66-3:15). Second, utilizing the state machine
of Gormish to encode data would provide the predictable benefit of increased
speed for coding. (EX1006 at 2:11-32; see also EX1003 at 119). As
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
perform the coding (compressing and decompressing) in the Appelman system.
(EX1006 at 1:55-56; see also EX1003 at 119).
2. Independent Claim 12 is obvious in view of Appelman and Gormish

comprising
claim element 1[a], and are thus likewise disclosed by Appelman for the reasons
discussed above. (Supra VII.D.3.a).
68
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204

data
claim element 1[b], and are thus likewise disclosed by Appelman for the reasons
discussed above. (Supra VII.D.3.b).

The limitations of claim element 12[c] are substantially similar to those of
claim element 1[c], and are thus likewise disclosed by Appelman for the reasons
discussed above. (Supra VII.D.3.c).
d) compressing the data with the selected encoder utilizing at

least one state machine to provide compressed data having a
compression ratio of over 4:1; and
First, Appelman discloses compressing data to provide compressed data
having a compression ratio of over 4:1. (See supra VII.D.14.c). Second, Gormish
discloses using a state machine to provide compressed data as explained above.
(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
listed above in VII.E.1. (EX1003 at 119).
69
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
e) point-to-point transmitting the compressed data to a client;

wherein the compressing and the transmitting occur over a
period of time which is less than a time to transmit the data in
an uncompressed form.
The limitations of claim element 12[e] are substantially similar to those of
claim 2, and are thus likewise disclosed by Appelman for the reasons discussed
above. (Supra VII.D.4). The only additional element, point-to-point transmitting
the compressed data to a client, is disclosed by Appelman. For example, Appelman
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
transmission. (EX1003 at 88, 108)
70
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
3. Dependent Claim 13 is obvious in view of Appelman and Gormish

the compressed data at the client; and
Appelman discloses the additional limitation of decompressing the
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
decompressed in the decompressor 24 (STEP 408) and recompressed in the
71
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
recompressor 26 (STEP 410). The recompressed file is then forwarded to the
requestor 2' in conventional fashion (STEP 412). (EX1007 at 3:46-60). In this
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
of interacting with the data while it is in a compressed form. (Id.).
b) wherein the compressing, the transmitting, and the

decompressing occur over a period of time that is less than the
time to transmit the data in uncompressed form.
claim 3, and are thus likewise disclosed by Appelman for the reasons discussed
above. (Supra VII.D.5).

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).
F. Ground VI: Claims 14-17, 19, and 21 are obvious in view of

Appelman, Zusman, and Gormish
1. Summary of Ground and Motivation to Combine

This ground combines the references of the fourth ground (Appelman and
Zusman) with the references of the fifth ground (Appelman and Gormish).
Appelman generally provides the disclosures regarding the compression system as
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
data and information as discussed in ground I. (EX1003 at 118, 119). The
motivation to combine Appelman and Zusman is found above in VII.D.2 while
the motivation to add Gormish as a third reference is found above in VII.E.1.
2. Dependent Claim 14 is obvious in view of Appelman, Zusman, and

Gormish
are thus likewise disclosed by Appelman and Zusman for the reasons discussed
73
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204

Gormish

Gormish

Gormish

Gormish
74
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204

Gormish
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
Deposit Account No. 500417, Reference No. 098850-0018.
Date: September 21, 2017 Respectfully Submitted,
/Alexander P. Ott/
Alexander P. Ott, Reg. No. 63,110
Ashraf Fawzy, Reg. No. 67,914
Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518
Attorneys for Petitioner
75
IPR2017-02129
U.S. Patent 8,717,204
WORD-COUNT CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.24(d), I hereby certify that this Petition complies
with the type-volume limitation of 37 C.F.R. 42.24(a)(1)(i) because it contains
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.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,717,204 under 35

U.S.C. 312 and 37 C.F.R. 42.104; and
Exhibits for Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,717,204
(EX1001-1014)
Correspondence address of record for Address of record for Attorney

the subject patent, as listed in the 204 representing Realtime Data IP, LLC in
Patent prosecution history: pending district court cases:
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

FOX P.L.L.C. 12424 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD,
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. 12TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON DC 20005 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
/Alexander P. Ott/
Alexander P. Ott
McDermott Will & Emery
500 N. Capitol St., NW
Washington, DC 20001

Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Data, LLC, IPR2017-02129, (PTAB Sept. 22, 2017)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Data, LLC, IPR2017-02129, (PTAB Sept. 22, 2017)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

IPR2017-02129

U.S. Patent 8,717,204

DOCKET NO.: 098850-0018

Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNIFIED PATENTS INC.

REALTIME DATA, LLC

METHODS FOR ENCODING AND DECODING DATA

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW

A. Real Party-in-Interest 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(1) ...................................................... 1

B. Patent Owner and Related Matters 37 CFR 42.8(b)(2)..................................... 1

C. Counsel and Service Information............................................................................ 3

II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING...................................................... 3

III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED........................................ 4

A. Prior Art Patents and Publications .......................................................................... 4

B. Statutory Grounds of Challenge.............................................................................. 5

IV. U.S. Patent 8,717,204 ......................................................................................................... 6

V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................................................. 10

VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................................. 11

A. data packet (Claims 4, 14) ................................................................................. 11

B. descriptor (Claims 11, 21) ................................................................................. 12

C. recognizing and analyzing (Claims 1, 11, 12, 21) ......................................... 13

VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................................. 14

1. Summary of Compression Proxy Server: Design and

2. Summary of U.S. Patent 5,987,432 to Zusman et al. (Zusman) ............ 17

3. Motivation to Combine CPS and Zusman ................................................ 19

5. Dependent Claim 2 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................... 25

6. Dependent Claim 3 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................... 26

7. Dependent Claim 4 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................... 28

8. Dependent Claim 5 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................... 29

9. Dependent Claim 6 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................... 29

10. Dependent Claim 7 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................... 30

11. Dependent Claim 8 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................... 30

12. Dependent Claim 9 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................... 31

13. Dependent Claim 10 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................. 32

14. Dependent Claim 11 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................. 32

15. Independent Claim 22 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman ................ 34

16. Dependent Claim 23 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................. 37

17. Dependent Claim 24 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................. 38

18. Dependent Claim 25 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................. 38

19. Dependent Claim 26 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................. 38

20. Dependent Claim 27 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................. 39

21. Dependent Claim 28 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................. 39

22. Dependent Claim 29 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................. 39

23. Dependent Claim 30 is obvious in view of CPS and Zusman .................. 39

1. Summary of U.S. Patent 5,912,636 to Gormish et al.

2. Motivation to Combine CPS and Gormish ............................................... 40

4. Dependent Claim 13 is obvious in view of CPS and Gormish ................. 44

5. Dependent Claim 18 is obvious in view of CPS and Gormish ................. 45

6. Dependent Claim 20 is obvious in view of CPS and Gormish ................. 45

1. Summary of Ground and Motivation to Combine .................................... 45

2. Dependent Claim 14 is obvious in view of CPS, Zusman, and

3. Dependent Claim 15 is obvious in view of CPS, Zusman, and

4. Dependent Claim 16 is obvious in view of CPS, Zusman, and

5. Dependent Claim 17 is obvious in view of CPS, Zusman, and

6. Dependent Claim 19 is obvious in view of CPS, Zusman, and

7. Dependent Claim 21 is obvious in view of CPS, Zusman, and

D. Ground IV: Claims 1-11 and 22-30 are obvious in view of

1. Summary of U.S. Patent 6,385,656 to Appelman (Appelman) ............. 47

2. Motivation to Combine Appelman and Zusman ....................................... 49

3. Independent Claim 1 is obvious in view of Appelman and

4. Dependent Claim 2 is obvious in view of Appelman and

5. Dependent Claim 3 is obvious in view of Appelman and