trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00174, Paper No. 25
`February 27, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NONEND INVENTIONS N.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`____________
`
`Held: February 8, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: MICHAEL W. KIM, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`February 8, 2017, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00174, Paper No. 25
`February 27, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NONEND INVENTIONS N.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`____________
`
`Held: February 8, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: MICHAEL W. KIM, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`February 8, 2017, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DAVID L. CAVANAUGH, ESQUIRE
`MICHAEL VAN HANDEL, ESQUIRE
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C.
`
`--and—
`
`JONATHAN STROUD
`Chief Patent Counsel
`Unified Patents
`1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Floor 10
`Washington, D.C. 20009
`
`MATTHEW ANTONELLI, ESQUIRE
`Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
`4306 Yoakum Boulevard
`Suite 450
`Houston, Texas 77006
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE BISK: Good afternoon. This is a hearing for
`IPR 2016-00174 involving Patent 8,090,862, Unified Patents as
`the Petitioner and I'm not sure if I'm saying this right, but Nonend
`Inventions is the Patent Owner.
`As you know, we gave 60 minutes to each side for this
`case. And since there is no motion to amend, Petitioner, you will
`be the last to speak. So just let me know when you stand up how
`much time you want to save.
`And if you're going to -- I think we only received one
`set of slides. Is that correct?
`MR. ANTONELLI: That is correct. Matt Antonelli for
`Nonend. We did not present any slides.
`JUDGE BISK: Okay. I just want to make sure we're
`[not] missing something. So when you're talking, if you could
`specify the slide you're on because Judge Fishman can't see the
`screen. Okay?
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BISK: Oh, can we get a roll call for the
`
`record?
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Dave Cavanaugh for the
`Petitioner. With me is Jonathan Stroud from Unified Patents and
`also Mike Van Handel from Wilmer Hale, also with Unified
`Patents.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`
`JUDGE BISK: Okay. And the Patent Owner?
`MR. ANTONELLI: Matt Antonelli. I represent
`Nonend.
`JUDGE BISK: Okay. Thank you. All right.
`Whenever you're ready.
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Thank you, Your Honor.
`May it please the Board, I'm Dave Cavanaugh. As I
`mentioned a moment ago, the Petitioner is Unified Patents and
`this inter partes review is centered around an issue of streaming
`video data and we'll be talking about a variety of attributes of
`that. The Board in the Decision on Institution granted three
`different grounds. We'll talk about each of those grounds and
`address the particular issues raised by the Patent Owner.
`Before that so that everyone is on the same page, we'll
`provide a brief description of the '862 patent and then provide an
`overview of the prior art. I'd like to reserve just for the record 10
`minutes of rebuttal time and my colleague and I will split the
`argument for the first part and up until the description of the first
`ground I will be presenting and then Jonathan Stroud will be
`presenting for the second and third grounds and we'll make that
`transition as smooth as possible.
`JUDGE BISK: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. CAVANAUGH: So the '862 patent, as I
`mentioned, relates to a way of streaming data. I think what we've
`presented on slide 3 here is kind of a representative illustration,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`Figure 13 of the '862 patent and, you know, essentially the center
`circle is a consumer node that is going to -- getting ready or in
`this case receiving media stream and information from another
`node, a first node, getting the information stored in the buffer and
`then out in the green lines, which I've added just for clarity, the
`green line going down to the consumer manager, which is in the
`center of the consumer node circle out to the stream target, which
`is on the lower right-hand side of the illustration.
`And so the consumer node just as a circle is both
`receiving and buffers the information from the first node and then
`passes that information to the stream target.
`You know, so following Figure 13, Figure 14 describes
`a circumstance, and this is illustrated on slide 4, where a second
`node is included that is -- and that's shown on the left-hand side
`of Figure 14, on the top left-hand side, and that is kind of an
`indication that the consumer node is seeking or requesting for the
`media potentially to come from node B. Perhaps it's a slow
`connection. Perhaps the data connection is not as robust from
`node A and the consumer node is seeking another node to gain
`the data. And that's what's represented here.
`And then once there is a switch-off, let's say node B is
`-- and this is on slide 5. Node B is demonstrated to be a better
`quality node to provide the content. The node will switch and
`information will proceed from node -- from node B to the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`consumer node and then down toward the streaming target and
`then eventually the connection of node A would be disconnected.
`And what's represented here, just for clarity of the
`record, is that node switching, and this is kind of that
`circumstance where there is another node that kind of is feeding
`the consumer node, which is in the center.
`As I mentioned a moment ago, and this is on slide 6,
`just to kind of illustrate what kind of transition is going on and
`what's described in the '862 patent, when there is a -- what we're
`seeing here in slide 6 is two illustrations from Figure 6, 6D and
`6E specifically and, you know, it is part of a -- kind of a range of
`illustrations that describe how the data is transferred in a way that
`is kind of efficient throughout and kind of speed efficient
`throughout the whole system.
`And so what's illustrated in Figure 6D there is a series
`of data here. It's a series of digits 1 through 8 that is kind of
`getting throughout the system and, you know, there are various
`nodes which are kind of receiving information at various rates,
`which is represented as the specification describes, kind of going
`into the overall nodes.
`And ultimately here in this example 126, which is
`illustrated in red, you know, is going to receive and the green line
`indicates that it's receiving information from like 122, the node
`122, but recognizes as illustrated in 6E that there is a quicker
`connection and switches from a connection to 122 to the node
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`129. And so, you know, that's essentially kind of the switch or
`the handoff or the changing servers that's being described.
`And I think that just to kind of pause for a moment on
`another attribute of the '862 patent, you know, there is kind of a
`series of information. The consumer node can recognize that
`there may be another kind of data source that is kind of perhaps
`either at a faster speed or an equivalent speed and, you know,
`they can receive two pieces of information so that there's an
`overall piece of -- overall kind of -- kind of suitable data
`exchange rate provided. In the specification it provides like 28k.
`28k gets boosted up to 56k.
`So here the -- here's the representative claim of the '862
`patent. And what we see on slide 8 is Claim 1 and there's really
`-- it's a method for receiving data and it comprises four steps.
`The first three steps, the receiving, initiating a request, and the
`receiving in response to initiating the request is largely
`unchallenged by the Patent Owner.
`And the focus of the Patent Owner's kind of challenge
`in their Response is in this fourth limitation, which is kind of
`circled in red or kind of identified in red and highlighted or
`presented on the right-hand side of the screen, and I think it bears
`some moment to pause on the limitation itself because the
`limitation provides for making incoming content received over
`the first communication channel ready for processing and
`playback at the receiving media player, such that the item of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`content is streamed to a streamed target at the receiving media
`player, while another part of the item of content is being received
`by the receiving media player over the second communication
`channel.
`So it seems to provide for both, you know, the content
`is streamed to a steam target while another part of the item is
`received by the receiving media player and those are happening,
`at least as this method is describing, at the same time.
`So the Decision on Institution -- and I'll pause for any
`questions that the Board has at any time. But the Decision on
`Institution identified three different grounds of unpatentability.
`There was an anticipation by Shastri for nearly all the claims
`except for Claim 7, but all the claims that we identified in the
`grounds were granted by the Board.
`And then there are two other grounds over obviousness,
`Goldszdmit alone and also Goldszdmit in view of Lumelsky, and
`we'll describe kind of that obviousness in a few moments.
`You know, we thought it might be useful to just talk
`about the prior art at a high level before we go into the arguments
`that the Patent Owner presented, just so that everybody is on kind
`of the same wavelength with regard to the individual aspects or
`attributes of the prior art.
`This is Shastri which is the first ground of
`unpatentability and what we've illustrated and here's slide 10 is
`Figure 1 of Shastri and there are streaming servers, which are
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`highlighted in yellow on the top of the illustration, and there are
`media players, which are kind of identified in red with the P
`underlined, and there's a dynamic server selection module, which
`we'll talk about in a moment, inside the media player and that is
`basically the system that Shastri is describing for this
`uninterrupted playback of content.
`So this is a little bit more information on slide 11 about
`Figures 2 and 4 of Shastri, and, you know, what I think is
`important from Figure 2 is that the player as it's described in
`Shastri includes a number of different components. There is a
`parser, a buffer and the display module. There's the DSS, which I
`mentioned a moment ago, and all of that is a part of the player
`which is indicated by the -- kind of the dotted line on the figure,
`which I've highlighted as a red line in the illustration.
`And the DSS is what is determining whether or not to
`switch one server to another server. So that's an important part of
`the switching process and that's represented on the right-hand side
`of slide 11 and that is -- and there is kind of that question whether
`or not that server, the alternative server is better than the current
`server. If yes, then switch. And if no, then continue on in the
`earlier one.
`A couple points of Shastri, you know, their -- and this is
`what the Board mapped in the Decision on Institution that there is
`a sampling dynamic that goes on to kind of provide quality of
`service or quality of signal information that Shastri uses to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`determine whether or not it wants to make the switch, and that's
`represented here on slide 12. I've highlighted from paragraph 48
`of Shastri and then that media content I just want to make sure it's
`clear we recognize that it's not a sample or rendered, but that that
`sample is, indeed, brought into the media player as I think we'll
`talk about in a moment.
`You know, and the Patent Owner, as we understand
`their arguments, has made some indication that the Shastri
`reference doesn't teach uninterrupted playback and what we've
`highlighted here on slide 13 is that there is a switching that is
`"transparent" to the user, that it is a dynamic selection and that it
`is without interruption.
`So, you know, in the Petitioner's view along with our
`expert, we believe that that fairly discloses in a fairly concrete
`way that it is a service without interruption.
`JUDGE BISK: I have question about that.
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Sure.
`JUDGE BISK: I'm looking at the claim language of
`what Patent Owner calls a simultaneous limitation, which is the
`last one that you've been talking about.
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Yes.
`JUDGE BISK: To me I'm not sure if I'm missing
`something, but it seems like it's saying simultaneously receives.
`So it's making ready on the first part from the first
`communication channel and the other one it is being received. I
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`don't see anywhere that the claim includes simultaneous or
`uninterrupted playback.
`MR. CAVANAUGH: I would agree with that, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`JUDGE BISK: Okay.
`MR. CAVANAUGH: My point on Shastri is that the
`Patent Owner in the Petitioner's view is arguing a limitation that's
`not a part of the claim.
`JUDGE BISK: Okay.
`MR. CAVANAUGH: You're still right, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BISK: I thought it sounded a little bit to me
`like you thought there also needed to be a simultaneous --
`MR. CAVANAUGH: No. I guess what I was trying to
`do is be true to the reference as what it says and so not
`necessarily kind of aligning that with the claim limitation.
`JUDGE BISK: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. CAVANAUGH: And we'll talk about Goldszdmit
`in a few moments. What I'll do is go forward to the issues raised
`by the Patent Owner and there are kind of three kind of broad
`issues that we want to raise. One, the claim construction that the
`Patent Owner put in their Patent Owner Response and there are
`two of those.
`The Patent Owner alleges an earlier priority -- an earlier
`filing date based on kind of -- based on an alleged conception. I
`will address that and in the Petitioner's view the evidence is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`insufficient to antedate Shastri as the reference that they're trying
`to antedate. And then we'd like to talk about the individual
`references and kind of discuss how the Patent Owner either is
`trying to add limitations to the claim or oriented toward things
`that are not part of -- not a part of the claim.
`So in the two -- one of the first of the two limitations
`that the Patent Owner wants to construe in the Patent Owner's
`Response relates to the term streamed and this is a term that the
`Board construed in the Decision on Institution and so this is
`represented on slide 21 now, and the Board's Decision on
`Institution is represented in the second bullet point.
`The Patent Owner would like an alternative
`construction, you know, where we don't think that that is the
`proper construction. It's not really grounded in either a definition
`or the specification and it's not entirely clear to us what the Patent
`Owner's construction accomplishes, but it is clear to us that it is
`different in some respects than the Board's construction and we've
`applied the Board's construction as we've looked at the
`Petitioner's Reply.
`So that's I think key and I think the other key of
`streamed is regardless if you choose our construction or if you
`choose the Patent Owner's construction, it's the Petitioner's
`position that really the claims are invalid either way.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`
`So if there are no questions on the streamed, I'll move to
`the other construction which is the term another or another part of
`the item of content, which is in the fourth limitation of the claim.
`You know, you mention the simultaneity requirement.
`I've been calling it the fourth limitation, simply because I'm not
`exactly sure what simultaneity adds to the description of the
`claim. So throughout my presentation, I'm going to be referring
`to it as the fourth limitation just for ease and accuracy.
`And so the term another, you know, the Board chose not
`to construe it and gave it its ordinary and plain meaning and the
`Patent Owner came back and wants to identify in their Patent
`Owner Response and wants to identify it as a part of the content
`means a different part of the content and not the same part of the
`content and kind of applying the rules of construction that the
`PTO applies under the broadest reasonable interpretation. There
`is no definition of part of the content in the specification.
`In fact, part of the content --
`JUDGE FISHMAN: Counsel.
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE FISHMAN: Can you help us identify anything
`in the specification that supports the BRI construction that we've
`adopted?
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Well, you've -- I think you've
`given its ordinary meaning and there was no additional
`construction. I can identify the places -- I'll say it this way, I
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`think there are two parts to your -- two parts to the answer to your
`question. The first is that the specification really doesn't describe
`what another part of the content really is and the Patent Owner in
`their Response when they identify kind of two aspects of the
`specification which relate to it, it's the not really using the term
`other part of the content, but it is talking about the sequencing of
`information, like throughout the different nodes and that's the best
`that we, as the Petitioner, have to rely on in terms of what the
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`specification is.
`And, you know, what we've done is try to understand
`what the claim means in the context of the specification using
`what is kind of an everyday nontechnical term of another and I
`think that what we've tried to do is to kind of make that as
`consistent with the specification as possible.
`JUDGE FISHMAN: Right. Given that we need to have
`BRI consistent with the spec, can you help us identify anything in
`the record that identifies portions of the spec with which we are
`consistent with?
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Sure. I think that there are two
`aspects and I'm going to -- I can get those specifically here in a
`moment and I'll give them to you and then they're going to be
`relatively the same as what the Patent Owner has identified
`because I think those are the only areas that address that
`particular issue and I'll just get to them.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`
`And I think it's column 9 when it's talking about the
`switch-off between -- and that's column 9. I think it's 50 to about
`60 or 59 where it talks about the switch-off and then there is
`another portion relating to the switch-off in column 11, 45 to -- I
`think it goes all the way to column 12, line 10.
`And what those are doing, and this actually is a great
`segue into my next point, which is that the specification is pretty
`sparse about what constitutes another part of the content. What
`we have is kind of a general description of the transfer from one
`server to another where there is some indication of a change of
`quality or a change of speed and then there's a movement to a
`different server and then the first node or server is disconnected
`and that's pretty much what's there.
`And what we in our Petition tried to articulate was that,
`you know, what's going on is that there is a type of information,
`whether it's a video content or as used in the specification a series
`of eight digits I think to just simplify it, and that it is kind of
`represented in a server and represented in other servers also
`because it has to be -- because there has to be a choice between
`the quality of service in one server and the quality in another.
`So that the challenge that we have with the Patent
`Owner's construction, but also with kind of trying to define it
`consistent with the specification is that, you know, there is no
`kind of description of what another part of the content would be
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`because it's a different -- it's the same content because in patent
`terms 1 through 8 and 1 through 8 on the other server.
`So maybe my left hand is server A and that's 1 through
`8 and my server B is 1 through 8 also, but that's another copy of
`the same information and it may get transmitted to the server in
`faster or slower or greater or lesser quality, and what we're trying
`to do is to kind of represent that as an aspect of the -- kind of our
`construction and also how we're interpreting the references.
`JUDGE BISK: So I have a question.
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Sure.
`JUDGE BISK: Does this ground hinge on your claim
`construction on another? Because when I'm reading it, I can see
`Patent Owner's point that whatever one part means another part --
`when I -- at first glance you think that must be something else.
`So if we interpreted it that way, does that [defeat] the 102 over
`Shastri?
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: It does not. I think that what -- it
`does not make the 102 inoperative or less viable. What it does I
`think is a recognition that the specification is not providing kind
`of a full or an understandable kind of attribute of what another
`part of the content is.
`And when we look at Shastri, like we see the same kind
`of consideration, the selection, and then moving from that to kind
`of either a change in service or a change in server or not and that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`itself is I think what is described in Shastri it's what's described in
`the patent.
`So to the extent that the construction is going to be kind
`of consistent with the patent, like the prior art is teaching that, so
`we feel under whatever construction that the Board applies, so
`long as it's consistent with the patent, the prior art will -- Shastri
`will anticipate and the other pieces of prior art will --
`JUDGE BISK: So where does Shastri teach the another
`part, is that the sampling embodiment that you were talking
`about?
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: There are two different
`mappings of Shastri that we've provided. One -- and I can get to
`that now because I think it's -- and I'll speak for a moment of the
`priority in a moment.
`But the mapping -- the two mappings of Shastri relate to
`one is the sampling and the sampling I think the Board knows
`from the Decision on Institution is taking a part of that same file
`and kind of pushing it through to the media player and making a
`determination, is this better quality or not?
`And I think that the another part I think is just in some
`ways imbedded in kind of the way that Shastri is operating,
`because there are a number of different -- you know, the sample
`is necessarily going to be from A, a different server, which is
`what I was talking about. There are two different servers with the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`same information and that another is going to be necessarily
`different than the stuff that's already played.
`Because if it's already been played, they're not going to
`be sampling that for quality of service. I think it's part of the way
`that Shastri operates that someone skilled in the art --
`JUDGE BISK: But couldn't they sample any of it, just
`to -- does that quality of service -- I mean, it might be more
`efficient for them to sample something they haven't already seen
`because then they don't have to get it twice, but it seems like you
`could tell the quality of the connection by sampling any part of it.
`MR. CAVANAUGH: I think that the -- you could tell
`the quality of service by getting any part of it, but is it going to be
`that part which is played? Because as you recall, that fourth
`limitation is fairly limited in terms of that snapshot in time and
`before or after I think would still -- would still meet that
`limitation.
`JUDGE BISK: So -- and I guess this is kind of where
`I'm getting to, does Shastri -- are you saying that it explicitly
`discloses another part or that it implicitly discloses it or does it
`have to be inherent in Shastri?
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Our position -- and thank you for
`raising it because I think it's important because the Patent Owner
`has said that we've made some inherency arguments. We have
`not made inherency arguments. You know, our argument as
`we've said in the Reply is oriented toward the way that someone
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`skilled in art would understand this reference, its operation and its
`disclosure and we're not saying --
`JUDGE BISK: So when you were saying it's
`necessarily another part, you were not relying on the necessarily.
`MR. CAVANAUGH: We're not relying on the
`necessarily. I mean, to the extent that I looped it into inherency, I
`did not mean to, but I do think that it is a fair reading of Shastri to
`say that as someone skilled in the art and our expert is all of that
`and in reading the reference looks at and says, you know, that
`part of disclosure of Shastri is, indeed, you know another part and
`there's clear testimony about that and it's -- I think it's fully
`described in our Reply.
`But I think also I'd like to raise our -- in some ways our
`second mapping or our -- because, you know, ultimately when
`you look at Shastri and you look at the disclosure of the '862
`patent, you're seeing the same kind of dynamic switching going
`on, except for the mistaken perception that we're relying on
`inherency as opposed to just the implicit disclosure of what
`someone would understand from the reference.
`You know, the Patent Owner doesn't really recognize
`that there are very few differences. There are no differences
`between what Shastri is describing in terms of its overall
`seamless content, it's uninterrupted or kind of that dynamic
`switching between servers is what is being described in Shastri.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`
`And so as I made the point a moment ago and I'll make
`it again right here is that to the extent that the claim itself is
`oriented toward what the specification of the '862 is describing or
`disclosing, Shastri has that.
`And I think that if the Board has no questions on that
`second part and, like I said, maybe I'll kind of frame the Shastri --
`you know, because we presented the two mappings in the Petition
`and because the Board acknowledged that that is there and the
`Patent Owner continued to argue that that second mapping in
`their view is insufficient, we believe that that issue is live before
`the Board and can form the basis of the final written decision and
`that's why we've presented it here today.
`I would like, before I sit down and let my colleague
`describe the other references, talk a little bit about the priority of
`the application. And the Patent Owner in their response, had tried
`to antedate Shastri. They presented two declarations from
`inventors with some E-mails and some faxes and the content of
`the E-mails and kind of the evidence for the antedating Shastri or
`kind of proving an earlier conception date and diligent reduction
`to practice I think falls into kind of three buckets.
`One, the content of what they present, the inventors
`present as documentary evidence supporting their evidence of
`conception is insufficient. It doesn't describe the claim
`limitations. It doesn't describe any attribute of what anyone
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`would normally look at to say, okay, you have possession of the
`invention. That's the first failing.
`The second failing is that it doesn't -- like it isn't
`communicated to another where the other person has kind of read
`and understood it. I mean, the lab notebook example, it could be
`like someone looked at the lab notebook, aha, I get it and I
`understand it and they sign the lab notebook. There's none of
`that. They only have uncorroborated evidence from two
`inventors which people in interference practice would know that
`like two inventors can't corroborate like their own invention. It
`just doesn't work that way. So that's the second failing.
`And the third failing of their evidence is a lack of
`diligence. There was a two-and-a-half-month gap and the
`insufficient explanation about why there should be such a long
`gap. And in Petitioner's view, each of those independently would
`fail, would cause their priority case to fail.
`And unless the Board has any questions about Shastri or
`about the priority, I'm going to --
`MR. STROUD: Your Honors, I am going to begin by
`walking us through an explanation of Goldszdmit and Lumelsky.
`I'm going to continue on and address the Patent Owner's
`arguments as to those references and the two grounds of rejection
`instituted over those grounds and then I will briefly, if we have
`time, address the Patent Owner's Motion to Exclude.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00174
`Patent 8,090,862 B2
`
`
`But I have just three main points that I wanted to raise
`today. The first is we maintain that Goldszdmit alone makes the
`-- renders the claims obvious because Goldszdmit teaches
`rendering and buffering for the purpose of uninterrupted playback
`and does so in the same way that the '862 patent seems to
`disclose.
`Second point is that the combination of the references is
`likewise obvious because it is not required to be a physical
`combination as the Board noted in their Institution Decision, but
`only requires what one of ordinary skill would glean from the
`second reference when analyzing the first. And my third point
`today is that the combination that we disclosed and cited contains
`sufficient motivation to combine the two references. In any case,
`as Lumelsky itself, beyond what we've cited already, is replete
`with such motivation.
`So, first, I'm going to turn to slide 14 for just a brief
`discussion of the two references that we're discussing. So
`Goldszdmit, our reference here as you'll see and from Figures
`2(a) and 2(b) teaches a client in red that requests a multimedia
`stream. This is slide 14. That client then requests -- or then that
`client is directed to the first server, which is in one of two sets,
`that has been identified.
`Moving to the next slide, slide 15, the client receives a
`stream over a connection from a first server as you see in 2(c).
`Figures 2(a) through 2(c) talk about the establishment of the first
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
