Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`Filed: May 9, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AT&T Services, Inc.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CONVERGENT MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01235
`Patent 8,850,507 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KEN B. BARRETT, and JOHN F. HORVATH,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`Grant of Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.108, 42.122(b)
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Background and Summary
`On April 3, 2017, AT&T Services, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`(Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute inter partes review of claims 1–17 of U.S.
`
`

`

`
`IPR2017-01235
`Patent 8,850,507 B2
`
`Patent No. 8,850,507 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’507 patent”). Convergent Media
`Solutions, LLC (“Patent Owner”) waived the filing of a preliminary
`response. Paper 8. Also on April 3, 2017, Petitioner filed a Motion for
`Joinder seeking to join this proceeding with Case IPR2016-01761. Paper 3.
`Absent a joinder with IPR2016-01761, institution of review is barred under
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because the Petition was filed more than one year after
`the date on which the Petitioner, real party in interest of Petitioner, or privy
`of Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’507
`patent. See Pet. 2. Patent Owner filed an Opposition to the Motion for
`Joinder. Paper 9. Petitioner filed a Reply to that Opposition. Paper 10.
`The ’507 patent is the involved patent in Case IPR2016-01761, and
`we instituted trial there, on March 3, 2017, with respect to claims 1–17 of
`the ’507 patent. The grounds of unpatentability Petitioner asserts against
`claims 1–17 of the ’507 patent are the same as the grounds of unpatentability
`which were instituted for trial in Case IPR2017-01761 for claims 1–17 of the
`’507 patent. Petitioner is not the petitioner in Case IPR2016-01761.
`To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the
`information presented in the Petition shows “that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered
`the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner, and in the absence of a
`preliminary response from Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the
`unpatentability of each of claims 1–17 of the ’507 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`
`IPR2017-01235
`Patent 8,850,507 B2
`
`
`Related Matters
`B.
`Petitioner indicates that the ’507 patent was asserted by Patent Owner
`against Petitioner in Convergent Media Solutions, LLC v. AT&T Services,
`Inc., No. 3:15-cv-2156-M (N.D. Tex.). Petitioner further identifies the
`following as related cases filed by Patent Owner: Convergent Media
`Solutions, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-02160 (N.D. Tex.), and
`Convergent Media Solutions, LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-02163 (N.D.
`Tex.). Pet. 2. Petitioner indicates that Patent Owner has asserted related
`U.S. Patent No. 8,914,840 against AT&T. Id. Patent Owner identifies Case
`IPR2016-01761 and Case IPR2017-01237 as related inter partes review
`proceedings. Paper 5, 3. We note that Case IPR2016-01814 involves
`related U.S. Patent No. 8,914,840 B2.
`
`The ’507 Patent
`C.
`The ’507 patent states, in a section captioned as “SUMMARY OF
`VARIOUS EMBODIMENTS [OF] THE INVENTION”:
`
`According to embodiments of the present invention there
`are provided systems and methods for navigating hypermedia
`using multiple
`coordinated
`input/output device
`sets.
`Embodiments of the invention allow a user and/or an author to
`control what resources are presented on which device sets
`(whether they are integrated or not), and provide for coordinating
`browsing activities to enable such a user interface to be employed
`across multiple independent systems. Embodiments of the
`invention support new and enriched aspects and applications of
`hypermedia browsing and related business activities.
`Ex. 1001, 3:4–14 (emphasis added). The device sets may include laptops,
`desktops, tablets, personal digital assistants (PDAs), televisions (TVs), set-
`top boxes, video cassette recorders (VCRs), and digital video recorders
`(DVRs). Id. at 16:28–43, 18:32–59, 19:32–47. The term hypermedia refers
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`
`IPR2017-01235
`Patent 8,850,507 B2
`
`to “any kind of media that may have the effect of a non-linear structure of
`associated elements,” and includes “graphics, video, and sound.” Id. at 7:4–
`15. The ’507 patent characterizes audio and video as examples of
`“continuous media” which refers to any “representation of ‘content’
`elements that have an intrinsic duration, that continue (or extend) and may
`change over time.” Id. at 19:65–20:6.
`The multiple input/output device sets described in the ’507 patent may
`be coordinated using “a device set management process that performs basic
`setup and update functions” to “pre-identify and dynamically discover
`device sets that may be used in coordination with any given system.”
`Ex. 1001, 37:28–35. This management process can “be based on and
`compatible with related lower-level processes and standards defined for
`linking such existing devices and systems . . . based on UPnP, HAVi, OSGi,
`Rendezvous and/or the like.” Id. at 37:38–42. The process enables basic
`communications among the devices in the device set, and “provide[s]
`discovery, presence, registration, and naming services to recognize and
`identify devices as they become available to participate in a network, and to
`characterize their capabilities.” Id. at 37:42–47.
`
`Claim 1 is the only independent claim of all challenged claims, and is
`reproduced below (bracketed lettering inserted for identification purposes):
`1. A method for use in a second computerized device set which is
`configured
`for wireless
`communication using
`a wireless
`communications protocol that enables wireless communication with a
`first computerized device set, wherein the first computerized device set
`includes a continuous media player, the method comprising:
`in
`[a] receiving discovery
`information
`that
`is obtained
`accordance with a device management discovery protocol
`that is implemented at a communication layer above an
`internet protocol layer, wherein the discovery information
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`
`IPR2017-01235
`Patent 8,850,507 B2
`
`
`allows a determination to be made at the second
`computerized device set that the first computerized device
`set is capable of receiving an indication of a particular
`control function related to a parameter of a presentation of
`a continuous media content on the first computerized
`device set, wherein the continuous media content includes
`video data;
`[b] making available to a user a first user interface that allows
`the user to select to direct communications to the first
`computerized device set;
`[c] making available to the user a second user interface that
`allows the user to select the particular control function
`related to a parameter of a presentation of the continuous
`media content; and,
`[d] causing to be wirelessly transmitted, in accordance with a
`wireless local area network protocol, the indication of the
`particular control function selected by the user via the
`second user interface to the first computerized device set
`for subsequent use by the continuous media player to
`control the presentation of the continuous media content
`on the first computerized device set.
`Ex. 1001, 165:2–33.
`
`Evidence Relied Upon
`D.
`Petitioner relies on the following references:1
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The earliest possible effective filing date of the ’507 patent, potentially
`establishable by Patent Owner, is May 10, 2002. Ex. 1001, (60) (63).
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`
`IPR2017-01235
`Patent 8,850,507 B2
`
`
`
`Zintel
`
`Reference
`U.S. Patent No. 6,910,068 B2
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Date
`issued June 21,
`2005; filed Mar. 16,
`2001
`issued Jan. 27, 2009;
`filed Mar. 26, 2002
`issued Oct. 31, 2006;
`filed Aug. 7, 2001
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D.
`Ex. 1009.
`The Asserted Grounds
`E.
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`Claim(s) Challenged
`Basis
`References
`1 and 3–17
`§ 103(a) Elabbady and Zintel
`
`Elabbady2 U.S. Patent No. 7,483,958 B1
`
`Janik
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,130,616 B2
`
`2
`
`§ 103(a) Elabbady, Zintel, and Janik
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`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 ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`One seeking to establish obviousness based on more than one reference also
`
`
`2 Elabbady claims benefit to U.S. Provisional Application 60/278,804, filed
`March 26, 2001 (“Elabbady Provisional”). Petitioner does not need to have
`the March 26, 2001 date as the reference date for Elabbady unless Patent
`Owner has successfully antedated the actual filing date of Elabbady.
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`
`IPR2017-01235
`Patent 8,850,507 B2
`
`must articulate sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to combine
`teachings. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
`With regard to the level of ordinary skill in the art, we determine that
`no express finding is necessary, on this record, and that the level of ordinary
`skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v.
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d
`1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016).
`Consistent with that standard, claim terms also are 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. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There are, however, two exceptions
`to that rule: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own
`lexicographer,” and “2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim
`term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony
`Comp. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`If an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must
`be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,
`1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). It is improper to add into a claim an extraneous
`limitation, i.e., one that is added wholly apart from any need for the addition.
`See, e.g., Hoganas AB v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 9 F.3d 948, 950 (Fed. Cir.
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`
`IPR2017-01235
`Patent 8,850,507 B2
`
`1993); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d
`1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Although it is improper to read a limitation
`from the specification into the claims, In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184
`(Fed. Cir. 1993), claims still must be read in view of the specification of
`which they are a part. Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d
`1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Wellman, Inc. v.
`Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Vivid Techs.,
`Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`B. Alleged Unpatentability of Claims 1
`and 3–17 as Obvious over Elabbady and Zintel
`Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`
`establishing unpatentability of claims 1 and 3–17 as obvious over Elabbady
`and Zintel.
`
`Elabbady
`1.
`Elabbady discloses a method and system for sharing media content.
`
`Ex. 1004, Abstr. The system includes at least one media holder, at least one
`media cataloger, at least one user control point, at least one media player,
`and at least one network operatively connecting them. Id. The media holder
`is configured to selectively output shared media metadata, media content,
`and at least one corresponding media license over the network. Id. The
`media cataloger is configured to receive the metadata identifying the shared
`media content that is available from the media holders. Id. The media
`cataloger is configured to output at least one media catalog over the network,
`and the media catalog identifies the shared media content that is available
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`
`IPR2017-01235
`Patent 8,850,507 B2
`
`from the media holders. Id. The user control point is configured to receive
`the media catalogues and request the shared media content as selected from
`the media catalog, for example, by a user. Id. The user control point
`configures the media player to receive the media playing license and the
`media content over the network. Id. In its Summary section, Elabbady
`states: “In certain implementations, the network includes a Universal Plug-
`and-Play network that allows the various devices, both wired and wireless
`devices, to quickly integrate with one another without user intervention.” Id.
`at col. 2, ll. 19–22 (emphasis added).
`
`Elabbady describes:
`One such implementation, in accordance with certain
`preferred implementations, includes the use of a Universal plug-
`and-Play (UPnP) protocol that provides a peer-to-peer network
`capability that can support various devices through wired and/or
`wireless connections. UPnP provides a distributed, open
`networking architecture that leverages Transmission Control
`Protocol (TCP/IP) and World Wide Web (WWW) features to
`enable seamless proximity networking in addition to control and
`data transfer among networked devices in a home, office, or other
`like environment(s). UPnP advantageously boasts device-driver
`independence and zero-configuration networking.
`Ex. 1004, 5:54–65 (emphasis added). Elabbady does not further describe
`what constitutes a Universal Plug-and-Play (“UPnP”) network or what
`constitutes a UPnP protocol. Elabbady refers to a UPnP network and a
`UPnP protocol in a manner that indicates they are well known to those with
`ordinary skill in the art and require no explanation. Elabbady also
`incorporates by reference the entire disclosure of Elabbady Provisional
`(Ex. 1005). Ex. 1004, 1:7–11. The Elabbady Provisional refers to UPnP
`and UPnP networking protocols in a manner that indicates they are well
`known to those with ordinary skill in the art and require no explanation.
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`
`IPR2017-01235
`Patent 8,850,507 B2
`
`Ex. 1005, 1–2. Petitioner submits Exhibits 1010–13, and 1020 as
`publications explaining what constitutes a UPnP network and a UPnP
`protocol. Pet. 9–15.
`Zintel
`2.
`Zintel relates generally to dynamic connectivity among distributed
`
`devices and services, and more particularly to providing a capability for
`devices to automatically self-configure to interoperate with other peer
`networking devices on a network, such as in a pervasive computing
`environment. Ex. 1003, 1:16–21. Zintel states that “there is a need for a
`device connectivity model that supports ad hoc peer networking among
`computing devices with preferably zero user installation or configuration
`experience and without persistent device configuration.” Id. at 2:57–61.
`
`Zintel discloses a system specifically implementing UPnP protocol.
`In that regard, Zintel states:
`The following detailed description is directed toward self-
`bootstrapping or automatic dynamic self-configuring of devices
`for ad hoc peer networking with other devices on a computing
`network that avoid user installation experience, persistent
`relationship configurations, and software driver downloads. In
`one described implementation, this self-bootstrapping is used in
`a device architecture 100 (FIG. 1), connectivity model, and
`device control protocol proposed by Microsoft Corporation,
`called Universal Plug and Play (“UPnP”).
`Id. at 4:47–56 (emphasis added). Zintel then proceeds to describe the UPnP
`network architecture in detail. The definitions in UPnP for “user control
`point” and “controlled device” are reproduced below:
`
`User Control Point. The set of modules that enable
`communication with a UPnP Controlled Device. User Control
`Points initiate discovery and communication with Controlled
`Devices, and receive Events from Controlled devices. User
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`
`IPR2017-01235
`Patent 8,850,507 B2
`
`
`Control Points are typically implemented on devices that have a
`user interface. This user interface is used to interact with
`Controlled Devices over the network. The modules minimally
`include a Discovery Client, a Description Client, a Rehydrator,
`an Event Subscription Client and an Event Sink[]. . . . Examples
`of devices that could be User Control Points are the personal
`computer (PC), digital television (DTV), set-top box (STB),
`handheld computer and smart mobile phone, and the like.
`Nothing prevents a single device from implementing the
`functionality of a User Control Point and one or more Controlled
`Devices at the same time.
`
`Controlled Device. The set of modules that perform
`certain tasks (e.g., printing) and communicate with a User
`Control Point. Controlled Devices respond to discovery
`requests, accept incoming communications from User Control
`Points and may send Events to User Control Points. Devices that
`support Controlled Device functionality may also support local
`user interfaces such as front panel displays or wireless remotes.
`The modules minimally
`include a Discovery Server, a
`description Server, a Control Server, an Event Subscription
`Server and an Event Source. Controlled Devices may also
`include a Presentation (e.g., Web) Server. Examples of devices
`that could be Controlled Devices are the VCR, DVD player or
`recorder,
`heating/ventilation/air-conditioning
`equipment
`(HVAC), lighting controller, audio/video/imaging playback
`device, handheld computer, smart mobile phone and the PC, and
`the like. Nothing prevents a single device from implementing
`the functionality of a User Control Point and one or more
`Controlled Devices at the same time.
`Id. at 6:60–7:32. Zintel identifies and describes the modules within User
`Control points and Controlled Devices of UPnP by use of a table below:3
`
`
`
`3 The table is shown in two portions within Zintel because it spreads across
`two columns. Our reproduction keeps the division between the portions.
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`
`IPR2017-01235
`Patent 8,850,507 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003, 13:50–14:20. The table above illustrates the functions of modules
`within the User Control Points and Controlled Devices of the Universal
`Plug-and-Play network and Universal Plug-and-Play protocol. Id. at 4:57;
`13:44–46.
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`
`IPR2017-01235
`Patent 8,850,507 B2
`
`
`Independent Claim 1
`3.
`For reasons discussed below, Petitioner has shown a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail in establishing unpatentability of claim 1 as
`obvious over Elabbady and Zintel. At the outset, we discuss how Petitioner
`has proposed to combine the teachings of Elabbady and Zintel.
`
`As noted above, Elabbady discloses an implementation that employs
`UPnP network and protocol but does not describe the workings of UPnP in
`detail. Petitioner explains: “Zintel describes UPnP’s framework and how it
`performs device discovery and invokes commands across devices using User
`Control Points and Controlled Devices.” Pet. 25. Petitioner further
`explains:
`Elabbady describes using UPnP but does not describe the UPnP
`discovery process in detail. Zintel discloses in detail the UPnP
`discovery process that allows a device to “make[] itself known
`through a set of processes-discovery, description, control,
`eventing, and presentation” so that “an entity can learn more
`about the device and its capabilities.” EX1003 at Abstract. Thus,
`a POSITA would have combined Zintel’s UPnP discovery
`method with Elabbady’s UPnP discovery method to obtain
`predictable results. EX1009 at ¶ 86.
`Id. Petitioner’s assertion of obtaining predictable results is vague and
`conclusory. But that deficiency is inconsequential, because the motivation
`for one with ordinary skill in the art to apply the UPnP discovery protocol
`described in Zintel in Elabbady’s implementation using UPnP stems from
`the fact that Elabbady describes using UPnP in its implementation and Zintel
`describes how UPnP works. No further explanation is necessary. One
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`
`IPR2017-01235
`Patent 8,850,507 B2
`
`merely following Elabbady’s instruction would have been led to using the
`UPnP network and protocol as described in Zintel.
`
`One with ordinary skill in the art would have applied Zintel’s
`description of how UPnP works to Elabbady’s embodiment using UPnP,
`simply because Zintel discloses in detail what Elabbady states it would use,
`i.e., UPnP network and protocol. For instance, Elabbady states: “One such
`implementation, in accordance with certain preferred implementations,
`includes the use of a Universal Plug-and-Play (UPnP) protocol that provides
`a peer-to-peer network capability that can support various devices through
`wired and/or wireless connections.” Ex. 1004, 5:54–58. Elabbady also
`states: “[i]n a UPnP environment, media [cataloging service] can employ
`the capabilities provided by the UPnP protocol to dynamically discover and
`gather (e.g., aggregate) shared media content information.” Id. at 6:16–19.
`Preamble of Claim 1
`a)
`The preamble of claim 1 recites: “A method for use in a second
`computerized device set which is configured for wireless communication
`using a wireless communication protocol that enables wireless
`communication with a first computerized device set, wherein the first
`computerized device set includes a continuous media player.”
`Elabbady describes that its system may be implemented using various
`media processing devices such as desktop computing devices, notebook
`computing devices, hand-held computing devices, personal digital assistant
`(PDA) devices, digital audio receiver (DAR) devices, digital audio player
`devices, digital video player devices, digital versatile disc (DVD) player
`devices, set top box devices, wireless communication devices, etc.
`Ex. 1004, 3:33–46. Petitioner identifies an exemplary case including a
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`
`IPR2017-01235
`Patent 8,850,507 B2
`
`digital A/V player as a first computerized device set and a PDA or personal
`computer (PC) as a second computerized device set. Pet. 26–27, 31. An
`illustration of the exemplary case is included in the Petition on page 27 and
`reproduced below:
`
`
`The figure above illustrates a first computerized device set in the form of a
`digital A/V player on the left and a second computerized device set in the
`form of a PDA or PC on the right. Petitioner notes further that this specific
`exemplary arrangement is contemplated by Elabbady Provisional which has
`been incorporated by reference into Elabbady. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1005, 15–
`16).
`The digital A/V player satisfies the requirement of a first
`
`computerized device set including a continuous media player. The PDA or
`PC satisfies the requirement of a second computerized device set. Elabbady
`describes that it allows both wired and wireless devices. Ex. 1004, 2:19–22.
`Elabbady also describes that its network may be either wired or wireless. Id.
`at 5:46–50. Petitioner also explains: “A POSITA would know that devices
`communicating with other devices on a conventional wireless network
`would be configured for communication using a wireless communications
`protocol.” Pet. 31. The assertion is supported by the Declaration of
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2017-01235
`Patent 8,850,507 B2
`
`Dr. Wolfe. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 93–94. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has
`adequately accounted for the preamble of claim 1, based on the disclosure of
`Elabbady, with or without additional teachings from Zintel.
`Limitation 1[a]
`b)
`Claim 1 recites:
`receiving discovery information that is obtained in accordance
`with a device management discovery protocol that is
`implemented at a communication layer above an internet
`protocol layer, wherein the discovery information allows a
`determination to be made at the second computerized device
`set that the first computerized device set is capable of
`receiving an indication of a particular control function related
`to a parameter of a presentation of a continuous media content
`on the first computerized device set, wherein the continuous
`media content includes video data;
`Referring to the following lines from the table in Zintel as
`
`illustrated above, Petitioner notes that in UPnP protocol, “the
`Discovery Client and Description Client modules initiate discovery
`from a User Control Point and receive Description Documents that
`describe the Controlled Device’s functionality”:
`
`
`Pet. 32–33. Petitioner notes that “Zintel provides a detailed description of
`device discovery and description in UPnP.” Pet. 33. Petitioner explains:
`Zintel describes in detail the UPnP protocols for both
`device discovery and description.[] See generally EX1003 at
`10:4-26, 12:22-13:2; 19:23-20:48; 47:19-48:8; 57:24-35
`(describing discovery including SSDP protocol). With respect to
`description, Zintel discloses that control points request and
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`
`IPR2017-01235
`Patent 8,850,507 B2
`
`
`receive “Description Document[s]” which are “used by a User
`Control Point or UPnP Bridge to learn the capabilities of a
`Controlled Device.” Id. at 8:57-67; see also id. at 2:67-3:20;
`6:25-58 (devices provide XML documents “describe[ing] the
`capabilities of the device”); 9:48-52 (description documents
`enable control of services by other devices “without any prior or
`persistent knowledge of the capabilities” of the service); 49:19-
`27; 65:21-27.
`Pet. 34–35 (footnote omitted).
`Petitioner explains that, as described by Zintel, UPnP device
`description documents provide information about the device and each
`service it provides, and that for each service, the description document
`includes a Service Control Protocol Declaration (SCPD) which provides
`detailed information about how to interact with the service. Pet. 35 (citing
`Ex. 1003, 9:45–56, 16:31–17:50, 26:52–27:66). Petitioner notes further that
`“[t]he SCPD describes the commands supported by the service so that the
`control point can understand the specific capabilities of the service and how
`to invoke commands on the service.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 9:30–56, 15:27–
`38, 21:27–32, 28:3–29:10).
`With regard to the UPnP protocol disclosed by Zintel and whether it is
`implemented at a layer above the internet protocol (IP) layer, Petitioner
`explains that the description documents of Zintel are XML formatted
`documents and are obtained via HTTP requests to a description URL
`advertised by the device during device discovery. Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex.
`1003, 10:56–61, 20:54–58, 25:47–58). Petitioner asserts that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have known “that HTTP is an upper level
`communication layer that sits above the IP layer.” Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1003,
`49:47–51, Ex. 1009 ¶ 103, Ex. 1010, 13, Ex. 1011, 105, Ex. 1020, 2). The
`assertion is supported by the testimony of Dr. Wolfe. Ex. 1009 ¶ 103.
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`
`IPR2017-01235
`Patent 8,850,507 B2
`
`
`Referring back to the exemplary configuration of Elabbady illustrated
`above, and relying on the testimony of Dr. Wolfe, Petitioner reasons that
`based on the detailed teachings of Zintel, one with ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood how device discovery and description would be
`performed by the PDA (or PC) and the digital A/V player of Elabbady.
`Pet. 36. Specifically, the PDA/PC would discover the capabilities of the
`digital A/V player by retrieving description documents that indicate the
`services supported by the digital A/V player, and the corresponding
`commands. Pet. 36–37. Petitioner explains that the information obtained
`from the A/V player would allow the PDA/PC to determine that the player is
`capable of receiving commands, and that the PDA/PC would refer to the
`SCPD information provided by the player to determine how to generate a
`proper command to control the player. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 9:45–56, 15:27–
`38, 57:52–66, 28:3–53).
`With regard to the claim requirement that the continuous media
`content includes video data, Petitioner points to Elabbady’s disclosure that
`the digital media included in its catalogue for playback can be video. Pet.
`37–38 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:21–26, 3:23–46, 6:66–7:10). Petitioner also
`identifies similar disclosure in Elabbady Provisional, which has been
`incorporated by reference into Elabbady. Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 1005, 1–2, 7,
`19–24, 61).
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has adequately accounted for
`limitation [1a], based on the combined teachings of Elabbady and Zintel.
`Limitation 1[b]
`c)
`Claim 1 further recites: “making available to a user a first user
`
`interface that allow the user to select to direct communications to the first
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`
`IPR2017-01235
`Patent 8,850,507 B2
`
`computerized device set.” Referring to the following lines from the table in
`Zintel as illustrated above, Petitioner notes that in UPnP protocol, the Visual
`Navigation Module on the control point “displays icons for discovered
`devices and allows for selection of a device to be controlled”:
`
`
`
`Pet. 38–39. The assertion is supported by the testimony of Dr. Wolfe.
`Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 81–83. Petitioner also states:
`
`Elabbady similarly describes a control point that allows a
`user to select to direct communications to the first computerized
`device (e.g., the digital A/V player). For example, Elabbady
`teaches a control point that provides a list of all A/V players on
`the network, allowing a user to select a playback device. Id. at
`16 (annotated below showing digital audio receive selection); see
`also id. at 2.
`
`
`Pet. 39–40 (citing Elabbady Provisional (Ex. 1005) which has been
`incorporated by reference into Elabbady (Ex. 1004)). Petitioner further
`notes that Elabbady discloses that the control point may reside on a PDA or
`on a PC. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1005). Thus, Petitioner reasons the user
`interface for selecting the digital A/V player is provided on the second
`device set, i.e., the PDA or the PC. Pet. 41.
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`
`IPR2017-01235
`Patent 8,850,507 B2
`
`Relying on the testimony of Dr. Wolfe, Petitioner states that one with
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that selection of a digital A/V
`player as is disclosed in Elabbady would be a selection to direct
`communications to that A/V player. Id. (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 111–12).
`Pointing to the Elabbady Provisional which has been incorporated by
`reference into Elabbady, Petitioner notes that Elabbady discloses that
`selection of the player causes a PLAY command and URL to be sent to the
`player, and that Elabbady discloses that the player control point on the
`PDA/PC can control playback by the digital A/V player. Id. at 41–42 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 16, 17, 42, 44, 50, 51). Elabbady itself additionally also states that
`control points provide user interfaces for interacting with controlled devices.
`Ex. 1003, 6:64–66. Petitioner further notes for additional support that
`selecting a device to control via a user interface is a typical and expected
`application of UPnP, particularly in a Windows environment, citing Zintel.
`Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1003, 8:18–20, 11:6–10, 13:63–14:11, 51:17–22). The
`Elabbady Provisional, incorporated by reference into Elabbady, specifically
`describes using UPnP in a Windows environment. Ex. 1005, 45.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has adequately accounted for
`limitation 1[b], based on the teachings of Elabbady and Zintel. Specifically,
`as presented by Petitioner, in the exemplary illustration shown above having
`a digital A/