`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 21
` Filed: December 26, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`WEBPOWER, INC.,
`
`
`FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS INC., STREAMRAY INC., WMM, LLC,
`WMM HOLDINGS, LLC, and MULTI MEDIA, LLC,
`
`DUODECAD IT SERVICES LUXEMBOURG S.A.R.L., ACCRETIVE
`TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., ICF TECHNOLOGY, INC., and
`RISER APPS LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WAG ACQUISITION, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`On December 27, 2016, we instituted inter partes review based upon
`the ground asserted in the Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) by Webpower, Inc.,
`challenging claims 5, 12, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,364,839 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’839 patent”) and a Preliminary Response to the Petition (Paper 6,
`“Prelim. Resp.”) filed by WAG Acquisition, LLC (“WAG” or “Patent
`Owner”). Paper 7 (“Dec.”) 35–36. We subsequently joined Friendfinder
`Networks Inc., Streamray Inc., WMM, LLC, WMM Holdings, LLC, and
`Multi Media, LLC in IPR2017-00784; and Duodecad IT Services
`Luxembourg S.A.R.L., Accretive Technology Group, Inc., ICF Technology,
`Inc., and Riser Apps LLC in IPR2017-00785 as parties to the present
`proceeding. Papers 11, 12. We refer collectively to all petitioners herein as
`“Petitioner.”
`In our Decision, we instituted inter partes review on the ground that
`claims 5, 12, and 19 of the ’839 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over (1) Chen,1 Willebeek,2 and Chen FH;3 and (2) Chen, Cannon,4
`and Chen FH. Dec. 36; see Pet. 5 (setting forth grounds).
`Following institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner’s Response
`(Paper 10, “PO Resp.”) and Petitioner filed a Consolidated Reply to Patent
`Owner’s Response (Paper 14, “Reply”). We held a hearing on September
`
`1 U.S. Patent 5,822,524, issued October 13, 1998 (Ex. 1004, “Chen”).
`2 M. H. Willebeek-LeMair, et al., Bamba-Audio and Video Streaming Over
`the Internet, IBM J. RES. DEVELOP., Vol. 42, No. 2 (1998) (Ex. 1008,
`“Willebeek”).
`3 File History of U.S. Application 505,488 (Ex. 1010, “Chen FH”).
`4 U.S. Patent 6,014,706, issued Jan. 11, 2000 (Ex. 1009, “Cannon”).
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`25, 2017, and a transcript of the hearing is included in the record. Paper 20
`(“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance
`of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`The ’839 patent is the same patent that was the subject of inter partes
`review in IPR2015-01036 (“the ’1036 IPR”), where our Final Written
`Decision determined that claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 20 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Chen and Chen FH;
`and that claims 3, 10, and 17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`obvious over Chen, Chen FH, and ISO-11172.5 Duodecad IT Services
`Luxembourg S.a.r.l. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2015-01036 (PTAB Oct.
`20, 2016) (Paper 17) (“Duodecad-01036”). We also note that the ’839
`patent is at issue in I.M.L. SLU et al v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2016-
`01658.
`
`
`5 International Standard ISO/IEC 11172-1, “Information Technology –
`Coding of moving pictures and associated audio for digital storage media at
`up to about 1,5 Mbit/s – Part 1: Systems,” August 1993; International
`Standard ISO/IEC 11172-1, “Information Technology – Coding of moving
`pictures and associated audio for digital storage media at up to about 1,5
`Mbit/s – Part 2: Video,” August 1993; and International Standard ISO/IEC
`11172-1, “Information Technology – Coding of moving pictures and
`associated audio for digital storage media at up to about 1,5 Mbit/s – Part 3:
`Audio,” August 1993 (collectively “ISO-11172”).
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`
`The parties state that the ’839 patent is asserted in nine pending
`litigations: WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Sobonito Investments, Ltd. et al., Case
`No. 2:14-cv-1661-ES-MAH (D.N.J.); WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Multi
`Media, LLC et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-2340-ES-JAD (D.N.J.); WAG
`Acquisition, LLC v. Data Conversions, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-2345-
`ES-MAH (D.N.J.); WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Flying Crocodile, Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 2:14-cv-2674-ES-MAH (D.N.J.); WAG Acquisition, LLC v.
`Gattyàn Group S.à r.l. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-2832-ES-MAH (D.N.J.);
`WAG Acquisition, LLC v. FriendFinder Networks Inc. et al., Case No. 2:14-
`cv-3456-ES-MAH (D.N.J.); WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Vubeology, Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 2:14-cv-4531-ES-MAH (D.N.J.); WAG Acquisition, LLC v.
`Gamelink Int’l Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-3416-ES-MAH (D.N.J.); WAG
`Acquisition LLC v. WebPower, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03581-ES-
`MAH (D.N.J). Pet. 1–2; Paper 4. One related litigation, WAG Acquisition,
`LLC v. MFCXY, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-3196-ES-MAH (D.N.J.), has
`been dismissed. Pet. 1–2; Paper 4.
`
`B. The ʼ839 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’839 patent, titled “Streaming Media Delivery System,” issued on
`January 29, 2013. It describes users viewing or listening to streaming
`content over Internet connections who encounter interruptions (“drops outs”)
`due to transmission delays and losses. Ex. 1001, 2:16–23. The ’839 patent
`addresses a “need for improved systems and methods for delivering
`streaming content over the Internet or other communications medium, which
`facilitate continuous transmission of streaming content, respond on demand
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`without objectionable buffering delay, and perform without disruption or
`dropouts.” Id. at 3:24–29.
`The ’839 patent states that Internet streaming, as practiced in the prior
`art, relied on a server transmitting streaming media continuously at the
`playback rate of the media, where the playback rate corresponds to the
`number of frames-per-second at which the media was encoded for playback
`at normal speed. Id. at 1:30–2:15. Data in each frame can be encoded using
`Constant Bit Rate (CBR) or Variable Bit Rate (VBR) encoding. Id.
`A client device for receiving and playing a streamed transmission
`(e.g., a computer running media player software) typically used a playback
`buffer (user buffer) for collecting frames of data being streamed. The client
`would not begin playback until the user buffer was filled to a specified level.
`The user buffer thus provided a reservoir of data available in the event of
`packet loss or delay, corresponding to the playback time of the amount of
`media initially buffered. If losses or delays occurred during transmission,
`the content of the user buffer (reservoir of data) would shrink as playback
`continued during the period of such losses or delays. See, e.g., Ex. 1001,
`2:16−38. Because playback continued at the playback rate, the buffer did
`not refill after depletion, other than by suspending playback and waiting for
`it to refill. Startup of playback always had to wait for the user buffer
`initially to accumulate data to a specified level, which required a noticeable
`startup delay.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ’839 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic diagram that illustrates elements of a
`streaming media buffering system. Id. at 4:1–3. Figure 1 shows server 12 is
`connected to Internet 10 for transmitting sequenced streaming-media data
`elements, composed a plurality of time-sequenced data elements. Id. at 6:7–
`14. Associated with server 12 are buffer manager 16 and server buffer 14,
`which stores at least one of the data elements for transmission. Id. at 6:14—
`17. In one embodiment, buffer manager 16 receives the media data, supplies
`the media data in order to first-in–first-out (“FIFO”) buffer 14, and
`maintains pointers 24a–24n into the buffer for each user computer,
`indicating the last media data element that has been sent to a respective user
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`and thus indicating the next element or elements to be sent. Id. at 6:61–7:6.
`Once FIFO buffer 14 is full, the oldest data elements in the buffer are
`deleted as new elements are received. Id. at 7:1–10. A predetermined
`number of data elements are kept in FIFO buffer 14. Id.
`The server buffer is pre-filled before a user joins the stream and
`transmission starts. Id. at 8:31–44. Pre-filling of the server buffer can be
`rapid if the data comes from disk storage. If joining a live (real time)
`transmission in progress, the server buffer is already filled at the time the
`user joins the stream. Once the server buffer is sufficiently full, the server
`buffer sends its contents, as fast as the connection will support, to the user
`system, to rapidly fill the “user buffer” (the playback buffer at the client).
`The user system can then start playing almost instantaneously. Id.
`For real-time data sources, such as a radio station, the ’839 patent
`describes that “server buffer 14 might be set to hold (for example) 30
`seconds of media data.” Id. at 7:26–29. “The server buffer 14 is filled the
`first time the media source connection is established.” Id. at 7:43–44.
`“Once server buffer 14 is full, for each new data element received into the
`buffer the oldest data element is deleted (or displaced) from the buffer.” Id.
`at 7:48–50.
`Specifically, the ’839 patent states:
`Once a connection is made to a user’s computer (e.g., user
`computer 18), server 12 sends the media data to the user
`computer in the following manner. First, media data is sent to
`the user computer at a rate faster than the playback rate, which
`may be the highest rate that the data connection between the
`server and the user computer will support, or any lower rate that
`is a higher rate than the playback rate (referred to herein as a
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`
`“higher than playback” rate), until the predetermined amount of
`data that had been stored in the server buffer has been transferred
`to the user’s computer. Once the contents of server buffer 14 has
`been transferred, a steady state condition is reached Wherein as
`each media data element arrives at server 12, it is immediately
`sent out to the user computer.
`Id. at 7:53–65. If there are no interruptions in the transmission, during “this
`steady state condition, the media data is sent at a rate that matches the
`constant fill rate of the server buffer, and is received at the same rate by the
`user computer.” Id. at 7:66–8:1
`The ’839 patent further states:
`With the present invention, as soon as a user connects to the
`server 12, the server 12 transmits audio/video data as sequential
`data elements from its buffer 14 to the buffer 20 of the user, at a
`higher than playback rate. Unlike the prior art, media begins to
`play on the user computer 18 as soon as the user connection is
`made to the audio server 12 and a minimal amount of data
`elements have been received and stored in the user’s buffer 20.
`The user’s buffer 20 is built up while the media is playing. As
`each data element is played, it is deleted or displaced from the
`user’s buffer 20.
`Id. at 9:8–17. The ’839 patent’s approach uses the server’s built-in transport
`mechanism, e.g., the server’s TCP stack, as a control mechanism. Id. at 8:9–
`13. The server buffer sends data, via the transport mechanism, to the user
`buffer. At any time, the connection between the server and user buffers, as
`moderated by the server’s transport mechanism, sends as much data as the
`transport mechanism will accept, and sends the data as fast as the connection
`will allow. Id. at 10:24–33.
`During steady state, Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) senses if a
`transmission interruption or delay occurs and temporarily stops accepting
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`data, causing data to “back up” in the server buffer and correspondingly to
`deplete in the user buffer. Id. at 8:4–8. When the interruption or delay
`clears, the “backed up” data is sent to the client side as fast as the connection
`will support, emptying the accumulated data in the server buffer, restoring
`the user buffer, and resuming the steady state operation. Id. at 10:24–33.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 are the challenged claims. Dependent
`claim 5 and independent claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, are
`illustrative and reproduced below (Ex. 1001, 15:57–16:25, 16:34–35):
`1. A method for distributing streaming media via the Interact [sic]
`to at least one user system of at least one user, the streaming
`media comprising a plurality of sequential media data elements
`for a digitally encoded audio or video program encoded for
`playback at a playback rate, the user system being assumed to
`have a user buffer for receiving media data and facilities to play
`back the streaming media at the playback rate for viewing or
`listening by said at least one user, from a server having a server
`buffer for buffering sequential media data elements, said
`method comprising:
`loading the server buffer with streaming media data elements;
`sending an initial amount of streaming media data elements to the
`user system at an initial sending rate more rapid than the
`playback rate; and
`thereafter, sending further streaming media data elements to the
`user system at about the playback rate and filling the server
`buffer or moving a data window through the server buffer at
`about the playback rate;
`wherein the initial amount of streaming media data elements, and
`the initial sending rate, are sufficient for the user system to
`begin playing back the streaming media while the user buffer
`continues to fill;
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`
`wherein the further streaming media data elements are received at
`about the playback rate by the user system if there are no
`interruptions in the transmission of streaming media data
`elements between the server and the user system; and
`wherein said method further comprises detecting if any
`interruptions in the transmission of streaming media data
`elements between the server and the user system have
`occurred such that streaming media data elements that
`have been sent by the server to the user system have been
`delayed or not received by the user system.
`
`5. The method of claim 1, wherein the media data elements
`are provided from a live broadcast.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Interpretation
`We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC
`v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard as the claim construction standard to be
`applied in an inter partes review proceeding). Under the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are generally given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art, in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`In IPR2015-01036, our Final Written Decision adopted our
`preliminary constructions of the following claim terms/phrases from the
`’839 patent: “playback rate,” “at about the playback rate,” “the initial
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`amount of streaming media data elements, and the initial sending rate, are
`sufficient for the user system to begin playing back the streaming media
`while the user buffer continues to fill,” “sending to the user system [the]
`unsent streaming media elements in the server buffer at a sending rate more
`rapid than the playback rate,” and “provided from a live broadcast,” and “for
`each of the plurality of user systems, maintaining a record of the last
`streaming media data element that had been sent to the user system.”
`Duodecad-01036 at 9. We adopted those constructions summarized below
`in our Decision to Institute in the present case (Dec. 9–10).
`Claim Term/Phrase
`Construction
`“playback rate”
`“A data rate for which the data is
`encoded to be played out.”
`“at approximately the rate at which
`the media will be played out”
`“Enough data is initially sent fast
`enough so that the player can at
`least start playback while its buffer
`continues to fill.”
`
`“at about the playback rate”
`
`“At least some of the unsent data in
`the server buffer is sent at a
`sending rate more rapid than the
`playback rate.”
`
`“Live describes something being
`contemporaneously created and
`streamed.”
`
`
`
`“the initial amount of streaming
`media data elements, and the
`initial sending rate, are sufficient
`for the user system to begin
`playing back the streaming media
`while the user buffer continues to
`fill”
`
`“sending to the user system [the]
`unsent streaming media elements
`in the server buffer at a sending
`rate more rapid than the playback
`rate”
`“provided from a live broadcast;”
`and “for each of the plurality of
`user systems, maintaining a record
`of the last streaming media data
`element that had been sent to the
`user system”
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`Dec. 10 (citing IPR2015-01036, Paper 8).
`The parties have not further argued claim construction and we hereby
`adopt our preliminary constructions as final.
`
`B. Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a
`whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in
`the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of non-obviousness
`(i.e., secondary considerations). Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
`18 (1966). We analyze this asserted ground based on obviousness with the
`principles identified above in mind.
`
`C. Level of Skill in the Art
`Petitioner’s declarant, Nathaniel Polish, Ph.D., asserts that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art “would have had a B.S. degree in computer science
`or electrical engineering (or comparable degree) and two years of experience
`in networking or streaming media, or a M.S. in computer science or
`electrical engineering (or comparable degree).” Ex. 1003 ¶ 21. Dr. Polish
`further states that “[t]hese descriptions are approximate, and a higher level
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`of education or specific skill might make up for less experience, and vice-
`versa.” Id. ¶ 22.
`Neither Patent Owner nor its declarant, Mung Chiang, Ph.D., proffers
`a characterization of the education and experience of a person of ordinary
`skill, although Dr. Chiang attests that his own qualifications permit him to
`provide an opinion, “including what a person having ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 10.
`We find Dr. Polish’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art
`reasonable, and adopt it for this Final Written Decision.
`
`D. Prior Art Asserted
`1. Chen (Ex. 1004)
`Chen describes a system for the “just-in-time” retrieval of multimedia
`files over a computer network. Ex. 1004, [54]. Figure 1 of Chen is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic illustration showing client machine 20 receiving data
`streamed from server machine 21 over a network. Data packets are loaded
`into a “server control stream buffer” 1 for streaming over data channel 6.
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`Streamed packets are accumulated in “client agent packet buffer” 31 for
`playback. Id. at 4:21, 4:65−5:44, Figure 1.
`Chen describes “normal,” “rush,” and “pause” transmission modes for
`streaming from a server to a user. Id. at 6:1−15 (emphasis omitted). It
`describes a “water mark” model for buffering streaming content. Id. at
`6:16−54 (emphasis omitted). The server buffer is like a water bucket
`having high and low “water marks.” Id. Water exits the bucket through a
`spout similar to data exiting a packet buffer as its content is delivered to a
`user. Id. When water in the bucket is at a level between the water marks,
`transmission occurs in the normal mode. Id. The normal mode carries out
`frame level pacing, i.e., transmission at the playback rate. Id. at 10:3−4.
`When the amount of data falls below the low mark, the transmission mode
`changes to “rush.” Id. at 6:42−47 (emphasis omitted). In rush mode, frame
`level pacing is ignored and data is transmitted as fast as possible. Id. at
`claims 18, 29; Figure 6.
`
`2. Chen FH (Ex. 1010)
`Chen FH shows that during prosecution of the application eventually
`issuing as Chen, patent applicant submitted a Declaration in accordance with
`37 C.F.R. § 1.131 for the purpose of predating (“swearing behind”) a cited
`reference. Ex. 1010, 77−79. That Declaration references a “Quick Video
`Server” (“QVS Sever”) exhibit document alleged to describe a commercial
`embodiment of Chen. Id. at 77. The Declaration includes a claim chart
`mapping the technical documents provided for the QVS server to the then-
`pending claims. Id. at 112–119. Chen FH describes a protocol used by the
`QVS server and is reproduced below.
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`
`
`Id. at 86. The QVS Server Protocol describes “PAUSE,” “NORMAL,” and
`“RUSH” transmission modes. Id. Rush mode is described as “transmit data
`as fast as possible, subject to the Round-Robin sharing with other active
`streams.” Id.
`
`3. Willebeek (Ex. 1008)
`Willebeek describes a method of displaying streamed digital video
`data, including live video, on a client computer using buffers as the client
`and server. Ex. 1008, 269, FIGURE 6. Willebeek teaches that “[a] Live
`Bamba system was developed to stream audio and video from a live source
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`across the Web to multiple recipients.” Id. at 277. Figure 6 of Willebeek is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`Willebeek Figure 6 is a schematic diagram of a “Live Bamba
`system” showing a circular buffer queue containing the most
`recent several seconds of a live transmission.
`Id. at 277. Willebeek states that “[t]he Live Bamba system consists of three
`primary components (as illustrated in Figure 6 [above]): an audio/video
`capture station, an audio/video reflector, and an audio/video playback
`station.” Id.
`In the capture station, audio and video inputs are converted from
`analog to digital form, compressed, and then packetized. The
`Live Bamba packets are transmitted to the reflector via TCP/IP
`connection that is established between the reflector and the
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`
`capture station. The reflector then establishes and manages
`multiple connections to interested recipients.
`Id. at 277–278. When a new user requests live video, the server produces a
`new copy of the circular buffer and that copy is used as that user’s server
`buffer. Id.; see also Figures 6–7.
`4. Cannon (Ex. 1009)
`Cannon is an issued patent, filed March 14, 1997, describing a method
`of displaying streamed digital video data, including live video, on a client
`computer using buffers as the client and server. Ex. 1009, Abstract, Figure
`1A. Cannon is discussed in the background section of the ’839 patent, and
`was therefore before the Patent Office during original prosecution, but not
`considered in combination with Chen. Pet. 10.
`Cannon Figure 1A is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`
`Cannon Figure 1A is a schematic diagram of a video camera
`providing a live feed to an encoder. Figure 1A depicts that computer
`network 100 includes a server computer 102 and a client computer 104.
`Video camera 106 records video data, which is digitized and encoded by
`encoder 110 for transmission to either server 102 or memory 115 for storage.
`Encoder 110 represents, in one embodiment of the invention, the video
`source from which data may be streamed to the client via the server.
`Ex. 1009, 7:10–34. Encoder 110, which may be implemented in hardware
`or software, may also perform compression on the raw digital video data to
`improve storage and transmission efficiency. Data packets outputted by
`encoder 110 (or retrieved from memory 115) are then buffered within server
`play-out buffer 112 for transmission to client computer 104. Data packets
`stored in memory 115 may be employed by client computer 104 to facilitate
`rewind, fast forward, and other control modes. Id. As each data packet or
`group of data packets is outputted from server play-out buffer 112 onto data
`connection 114 for transmission (e.g., responsive to a command from client
`computer 104 which is received by server computer 102 via a control
`connection 116), the same data packet or group of data packets is input into
`retransmit buffer 118 at the server. Id. at 7:35–40.
`Retransmit buffer 118 represents a first-in-first-out (FIFO) buffer
`which retains for a limited time a data packet transmitted from server
`playout buffer 112. As new data packets are input into retransmit buffer 118,
`old data packets (starting with the oldest data packets) are discarded from
`transmit buffer 118. Id. at 7:46–65. As data packets are received by client
`computer 104 from data connection 114, they are inputted into client play-
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`out buffer 120 to be displayed by renderer application 122. Client play-out
`buffer 120 may represent, in one embodiment, a FIFO buffer. Client play-
`out buffer 120 and/or server play-out buffer 112 are typically sized
`appropriately to minimize latency while taking into account the reliability
`and stability of network 100 through which data connection 114 traverses.
`Id. at 7:66–8:16.
`Although only one control connection 116 and one control connection
`114 are shown in FIGURE 1A, a real-time video session may involve
`multiple data and control connections for the multiple data streams, e.g.,
`video, audio, annotations, and the like. Id. at 8:28–8:37.
`
`E. Obviousness Based on Chen (Ex. 1004), Chen FH (Ex. 1010),
`and Willebeek (Ex. 1008)
`Petitioner contends that that Chen in combination with Chen FH
`teaches the limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Pet. 16–32, 35–
`44. Petitioner cites evidence and argument that the three transmission
`modes described in Chen (Normal, Rush, and Pause) in combination with
`Chen FH teaches the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15. Id. at 16–32, 42–44
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36, 38, 40, 43, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56). Petitioner provides a
`claim chart with citations to Chen for the limitations of independent claims
`1, 8, and 15. Pet. 19–32.
`To the extent that Chen does not teach the limitation for “sending an
`initial amount of streaming media data elements to the user system at an
`initial sending rate more rapid than the playback rate” as recited in claim 1,
`Petitioner argues that Chen FH in combination with Chen teaches starting in
`RUSH mode upon opening of a multimedia file. Pet. 42–44 (citing Ex. 1003
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`¶¶ 66–67; Ex. 1010, 77–79, 86–87). Petitioner provides an articulated
`reasoning for the combination of Chen and Chen FH, noting that
`combination would minimize start delay, and require combining teachings in
`a known way to achieve predictable results. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65; see also Ex.
`1013, 63:14–16. Finally, as Petitioner notes, our Final Written Decision in
`IPR2015-01036 determined that Chen and Chen FH rendered the limitations
`of claims 1, 8, and 15 obvious. Reply 1; Duodecad-01036 at 19–29, 30–35,
`43. Patent Owner did not appeal this decision. Accordingly, we determine
`that Chen and Chen FH teach the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 of the
`’839 patent.
` Dependent claims 5, 12, and 19, which depend from claims 1, 8, and
`15 respectively, require that the streaming content be generated from a live
`broadcast. Petitioner contends that claims 5, 12, and 19 are unpatentable as
`obvious in view of Chen and Willebeek. Pet. 35–39 (citing Ex. 1003).
`Petitioner argues that a modified version of the Willebeek circulating buffer
`could be used to feed a live broadcast to a modified version of the Chen
`server buffer. Pet. 37.
`Specifically, Petitioner notes that in a preferred Chen embodiment,
`shown in Figure 4, a parser 62 extracts frame-by-frame timing information
`from a multimedia file, placing the timing information in an index file 63,
`which is used by the server control 64 to pace transmission. Pet. 35 (citing
`Ex. 1004, 8:43–55). Chen states that the parser can extract the frame
`information beforehand or on the fly (during multimedia file transmission).
`Ex. 1004, 8:50–52. Petitioner contends that the Willebeek “capture station”
`packetizes data from a live stream. Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1008, 277–278;
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`Figure 6). These packets are transferred to a server buffer. Petitioner
`proposes that Willebeek’s plurality of buffers, instead of being fed to a
`playback station (see Ex. 1008, Figure 6) would instead be fed to Chen’s
`server control stream buffer, as shown in Petitioner’s combination figure,
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Pet. 37. Petitioner’s modified figure shows an arrangement where the
`circular buffer of Figure 6 from Willebeek replaces the server buffer from
`Figure 1 of Chen. Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51–52). Petitioner
`presents evidence to support its contention that it would have been obvious
`to combine Willebeek’s teachings of a live capture station and circular
`buffer queue with Chen so that Chen could provide live video as well as
`prestored video. Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 51). Furthermore, Petitioner
`asserts that it would have been obvious to configure the combined system so
`that, if one of Chen’s users requested live video, a new copy of a circular
`buffer queue such as the one produced by Willebeek’s capture station and
`server would become Chen’s server buffer. Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01239
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`
`¶ 52). Because the circular buffer queue contains a few seconds of video,
`Chen “would then be able to rush the first packets to the user.” Pet. 37.
`After that, the packets would be sent at the normal (playback rate), as they
`are received—packets would be received at the server as they are generated
`by the capture station from the live feed and, barring interruptions, would be
`passed to the client packet buffer 31 at the playback rate. Ex. 1004, 6:33–
`39.
`
`Petitioner argues Chen and Willebeek both utilize packet data and “it
`would have . . . been obvious to a POSITA to take Willebeek’s teachings to
`utilize a capture station to receive video, encode it into Chen-compliant
`packets, and place them in a reflector with a circular buffer queue” as
`Willebeek teaches. Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 54). Petitioner argues:
`A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated
`to combine the teachings in this manner because, as Willebeek
`describes: “Most recently, streamed audio and video have
`become available from both stored and live sources on the Web.”
`Ex. 1008 at 277; Polish Decl., Ex. 1003 at ¶ 56. Modifying Chen
`in this manner would allow the system to provide access to this
`recently available data source.
`Pet. 39.
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence with respect
`to dependent claims 5, 12, and 19, and the claims from which they depend,
`and conclude that Petitioner de