Paper No. 7
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: March 6, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CONVERGENT MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01811
`Patent 8,527,640 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KEN B. BARRETT, and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: March 6, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CONVERGENT MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01811
`Patent 8,527,640 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KEN B. BARRETT, and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01811
`Patent 8,527,640 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Background and Summary
`Netflix, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 8,527,640 B2 (“the ’640 patent,” Ex. 1029).
`Paper 2 (“Pet.”). The Petition challenges the patentability of claims 1, 2, 5,
`11–13, 18, 26, 32, 36, 68, 73, 95, 102, 112–114, 121, 128, 141, 170, 171,
`and 188 of the ’640 patent on the grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103. Convergent Media Solutions, LLC (Patent Owner) did not file a
`Preliminary Response to the Petition.
`
`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, 5, 12,
`13, 26, 32, 36, 68, 73, 95, 102, 112–114, 121, 128, 141, 170, 171, and 188 of
`the ’640 patent. Petitioner has not, however, shown a reasonable likelihood
`that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 2, 11, and
`18 of the ’640 patent.
`
`Related Proceedings
`B.
`One or both parties identify, as matters involving or related to the
`
`’640 patent, Convergent Media Solutions, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-
`02160-M (N.D. Tex), Convergent Media Solutions, LLC v. AT&T, Inc.,
`3:15-cv-2156-M (N.D. Tex.), and Patent Trial and Appeal Board cases
`IPR2016-01761 (U.S. Patent No. 8,850,507), IPR2016-01812 (U.S. Patent
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01811
`Patent 8,527,640 B2
`
`No. 8,640,1831), IPR2016-01813 (U.S. Patent No. 8,689,273), and
`IPR2016-01814 (U.S. Patent No. 8,914,840). Pet. 2; Paper 4.
`
`C. The ’640 Patent
`The ’640 patent states, in a section titled 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 arc [sic] 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. 1029, 3:10–20 (emphasis added). The device sets may include a
`television (TV) or interactive television (ITV) system which commonly
`includes a set-top box (STB), a personal computer (PC) including a desktop
`or laptop/notebook, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a phone, video
`cassette recorders (VCRs), and digital video recorders (DVRs). Id. at
`18:55–57, 19:31–35, 24:54–61. The ’640 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,” and includes “both ‘stored
`formats’ and ‘streams’ or streaming transmission formats.” Id. at 20:4–12.
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 8,640,183 also is the subject of PTAB case Unified Patents
`Inc. v. Convergent Media Solutions, LLC, IPR2016-00047.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01811
`Patent 8,527,640 B2
`
`The ’640 patent describes a migration of a session from one system to
`
`another. Id. at 32:58–34:62. The ’640 patent explains that “[t]he terms
`‘transfer’ and ‘migrate’ are used synonymously to refer to the movement of
`the locus of work of a session, such as from one system or device set to
`another” and “[t]he term ‘clone’ is used to refer to a transfer that duplicates
`the current resource presentation of a session at a second device set.” Id. at
`11:28–34. The described migration involves transfer of state data, including
`the time-position in continuous media content, from the first to the second
`system. See id. at 33:20–52, 34:8–33.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1, 2, 5, 11–13, and 18 are independent claims. The remaining
`
`challenged claims depend from Claim 1. Claim 1, reproduced below with
`bracketed annotations inserted for identifying specific limitations, is
`illustrative:
`1. A method for cloning a session that includes a
`presentation of a continuous media resource on a first device
`set, the method comprising:
`
`[A]
`accessing via a programmed computer a session
`state record that includes continuous media resource identity
`data and a designation of a particular time position in the
`presentation of the continuous media resource on the first
`device set;
`facilitating via the programmed computer the
`
`[B]
`cloning of the session associated with the accessed session state
`record to produce a cloned session at a second device set, the
`cloned session including a presentation of the continuous media
`resource on the second device set from a target presentation
`time position derived from the designation of the particular time
`position;
`
`[C] prior to the start of the cloned session, enabling the
`presentation at the first device set to be stopped based on a first
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01811
`Patent 8,527,640 B2
`
`
`user input received from at least one of the first device set and
`the second device set;
`
`[D] prior to the start of the cloned session, enabling
`options for the target presentation time position for the cloned
`session to be adjusted, wherein the options include at least an
`option to make an adjustment and an option to make no
`adjustment, based on receipt of a second user input from at least
`one of the first device set and the second device set; and
`
`[E]
`in the event that the presentation of the continuous
`media resource on the first device set was not stopped in
`response to the first user input, continuing the presentation of
`the continuous media resource on the first device set after the
`cloning subject to user control of time position of the
`presentation of the continuous media resource on the first
`device set independently of user control of time position of the
`presentation of the continuous media resource on the second
`device set, and
`
`[F] wherein the continuous media resource is to be
`viewed by a consumer.
`Ex. 1029, 164:26–62.
`
`E. Applied References and Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`Reference
`Exhibit No.
`Katz et al. US 7,103,906 B1 Filed Sept. 29, 2000;
`Ex. 1033
`Issued Sept. 5, 2006
`US 7,650,621 B2 Filed Oct. 9, 2001;
`Issued Jan. 19, 2010
`
`Ex. 1034
`
`Thomas
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe, dated
`
`Sept. 15, 2016, (Ex. 1028) in support of its arguments. Petitioner maintains
`that all of the challenged claims—claims 1, 2, 5, 11–13, 18, 26, 32, 36, 68,
`73, 95, 102, 112–114, 121, 128, 141, 170, 171, and 188 of the ’640 patent—
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Katz and
`Thomas.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01811
`Patent 8,527,640 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo
`Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under the
`broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms 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 patent disclosure. In re Translogic
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Petitioner does not propose an explicit claim construction for any
`term, asserting that every term should be given its plain and ordinary
`meaning. Pet. 7. On this record and for purposes of this decision, we
`determine that no claim terms require express construction. Our
`paraphrasing of claim recitations in the analysis below is for the sake of
`brevity and is not to be interpreted as implicit or explicit claim constructions.
`
`B. The Alleged Obviousness of the
`Challenged Claims over Katz and Thomas
`Petitioner alleges that claims 1, 2, 5, 11–13, 18, 26, 32, 36, 68, 73, 95,
`
`102, 112–114, 121, 128, 141, 170, 171, and 188 of the ’640 patent would
`have been obvious over Katz and Thomas. Pet. 7–8.
`1. Katz (Ex. 1033)
`Katz discloses a media-on-demand system where the delivery of
`
`media on a first client device is interrupted, a bookmark is recorded, the
`bookmark specifying the position in the media where the interruption
`occurred, and resuming delivery, on a second client device, beginning at a
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01811
`Patent 8,527,640 B2
`
`position specified by the bookmark. Ex. 1033, Abstr., 3:57–65. The media
`may be stored in a media-on-demand server (MODS). Id. at 3:1-2, 20–22.
`Figure 3 of Katz is shown below.
`
`
`Figure 3 depicts a network architecture where the MODS is mediated by an
`ISP. Id. at 5:6–8. As indicated in Figure 3, exemplary client devices include
`a desktop PC, TV, laptop, handheld device, and a wireless telephone. Id. at
`5:55–63.
`
`Katz offers the example of a user watching a video (which is stored on
`the MODS) at home on one device (client device 615-2) but then having to
`leave for the airport. Id. at 10:36–11:16. The user terminates the video
`presentation, a bookmark at the stopping point is recorded, and then, while
`waiting at the airport, the user resumes viewing the video on a laptop (client
`device 620-1) at a point in the video associated with the bookmark. Id. at
`10:36–11:16; Fig. 6. The presentation may be terminated either from the
`viewing device at home or via the laptop at the airport. Id. at 10:54–57,
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01811
`Patent 8,527,640 B2
`
`11:28–36. Katz offers the further elaboration where the user bookmarked
`the presentation before leaving home but allowed the presentation to
`continue to run at home because someone else was watching the
`presentation. Id. at 11:56–67. After arriving at the airport, the user may
`request a second stream, and may continue watching the presentation
`beginning from the position indicated in the bookmark created before
`leaving home. Id.
`2. Thomas (Ex. 1034)
`Thomas discloses a media-on-demand system where the delivery of
`
`media and data stored on a remote server is accessed by a user at different
`locations on different devices. Ex. 1034, Abstr. The user, via a relocate
`feature, may freeze at a particular point the delivery of the on-demand media
`on one device at one location and later resume the delivery at that particular
`point on another device at another location. Id. at 10:24–36. The system
`may allow the user to select to resume a program from multiple programs
`previously frozen. Id. at 11:4–6. The system also may allow the user to
`resume the presentation from a point different from that at which the
`program was frozen. Id. at 17:22–33. The relocate feature may be selected
`from a remote control or from an on-screen menu. Id. at 10:44–47. Figure 3
`of Thomas, with highlighting added, is reproduced below.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01811
`Patent 8,527,640 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 3 shows a remote control 300 with the relocate option button
`highlighted. Id. at 7:16–20. Navigation buttons 340 on the remote control
`also may be used to move a cursor on an interactive program guide display
`screen. Id. at 7:52–59. Figure 6A of Thomas, with highlighting added, is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01811
`Patent 8,527,640 B2
`
`Figure 6A depicts display screen 600 which gives users one way of
`controlling the on-demand content, and includes controls for the relocate
`feature and primary control options 610 to play, pause, stop, rewind, and
`fast-forward a video-on-demand program. Id. at 9:33–34, 46–52.
`3. Analysis of Claim 1 in View of Katz and Thomas
`Petitioner relies on Katz as the primary reference (Pet. 13) and
`
`maintains that Katz teaches much of the claimed subject matter2, see, e.g.,
`id. at 14–15. Petitioner—in discussing claim 1, and specifically limitation
`1[D] reciting “prior to the start of the cloned session, enabling options for
`the target presentation time position . . . based on receipt of a second user
`input”—asserts that “Katz does not explicitly describe the particular user-
`selectable options that would be presented to a user prior to cloning the
`session.” Id. at 24 (citation omitted). Petitioner turns to Thomas for the
`teaching of user inputs, and specifically a relocate feature. Id. at 24–25.
`Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Wolfe, reasons that one of
`ordinary skill would look to improve Katz’s system by providing interfaces
`and other inputs like remote controls, such as that taught by Thomas. Id.
`at 21 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 438–441, 454). Petitioner maintains that one of
`ordinary skill would have reason to combine the references as they are in
`analogous fields, address the same problem in similar ways, and reach
`similar solutions, and because the combination would provide predictable
`
`
`2 Petitioner asserts that the secondary reference, Thomas, also discloses
`many of the features of the challenged claims. See, e.g., Pet. 15. Petitioner
`further relies on disclosures of Katz not discussed in this decision. Features
`of the references discussed herein and citations thereto merely are
`exemplary.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01811
`Patent 8,527,640 B2
`
`results. Id. In particular, Petitioner asserts that “[t]hey both teach systems
`that can play, stop, and then resume video playback across devices[,] [t]hey
`both use servers to save user related information, including saved time-
`positions[, and] [t]hey both can use the Internet to transmit video.” Pet. 11
`(citations omitted); id. at 26. Petitioner further asserts that one of ordinary
`skill in the art “would have been motivated to utilize Thomas’ user inputs to
`improve upon Katz’s bookmarking system because the user inputs of
`Thomas would provide the same benefits (increasing user flexibility to
`choose from start position of multiple programs) in the similar system of
`Thomas, with predictable results.” Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶ 434); see also
`id. at 21, 26 (addressing limitations 1[C] and [D], receptively). We are
`persuaded, on this record, that Petitioner has provided adequate reasoning
`with rational underpinnings to support combining the teachings of Katz and
`Thomas in the manner proposed by Petitioner.
`
`The preamble of claim 1 recites “[a] method for cloning a session that
`includes a presentation of a continuous media resource on a first device set.”
`As Petitioner notes, Katz discloses a method involving a media-on-demand
`system where delivery of media is interrupted on a first client device and
`resumed on a second client device. Pet. 8, 13; see, e.g., Ex. 1033, Abstr.
`We are persuaded that Petitioner has adequately accounted for the preamble
`of claim 1.
`
`Limitation 1[A] requires accessing, via a programmed computer, a
`session state record. The session state record includes continuous media
`resource identity data and a designation of a particular time position in the
`presentation of the continuous media resource on the first device set. For
`this limitation, Petitioner points to, inter alia, Katz’s media-on-demand
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01811
`Patent 8,527,640 B2
`
`server (MODS) which stores a bookmark containing data to identify the
`delivered media and a location on the delivered media most recently
`transmitted to a first client device. Pet. 14–16; Ex. 1033, 7:66–8:4, 8:45–50.
`We are persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently accounted for this
`limitation.
`
`Limitation 1[B] requires facilitating via the programmed computer the
`cloning of the session at a second device set, with the presentation being
`from a target presentation time position derived from the designation of the
`particular time position. Katz’s MODS facilitates the cloning of the
`presentation from the first device to the second device, with the MODS
`using the bookmark to transmit video and with playback beginning at a time-
`position specified by the bookmark. Ex. 1033, 2:20–24, 7:66–8-:12, 9:48–
`58; see Pet. 16–17. We are persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently
`accounted for this limitation.
`
`Limitation 1[C] requires enabling, prior to the start of the cloned
`session, the stopping of the presentation at the first device based on a first
`user input received from at least one of the first and second device sets.
`Katz discloses an example in which the user terminates the presentation on
`the first device, a home viewing device (client device 615-2), before leaving
`for the airport, and where the presentation is continued at the airport on a
`second device, a laptop (client device 620-1). Ex. 1033, 10:36–68, Fig. 6;
`Pet. 19–20. Katz also discloses terminating the presentation at the first
`device at home via the second device (laptop) at the airport before
`continuing the presentation on the laptop. Id. at 11:28–36; Pet. 19. We are
`persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently accounted for this limitation.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01811
`Patent 8,527,640 B2
`
`Limitation 1[D] pertains to providing time position adjustment options
`
`for the cloned session, and specifically requires:
`prior to the start of the cloned session, enabling options for the
`target presentation time position for the cloned session to be
`adjusted, wherein the options include at least an option to make
`an adjustment and an option to make no adjustment, based on
`receipt of a second user input from at least one of the first device
`set and the second device set.
`Ex. 1029, 164:45–51. Katz discloses that the bookmark need not necessarily
`store the last transmitted position, the stopping point, in the delivered media,
`and, for example, can store a time position preceding the stopping point so
`that later playback may overlap that stopping point. Ex. 1033, 8:1–12, 12:1–
`16; Pet. 23–24. According to Petitioner, Katz provides options for adjusting
`playback, but “Katz does not explicitly describe the particular user-
`selectable options that would be presented to a user prior to cloning the
`session.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶ 452). For that feature, Petitioner turns
`to Thomas. Pet. 24. Thomas discloses user control options in a media-on-
`demand system, including a remote control and an on-screen menu.
`Ex. 1034, Abstr., 10:44–47; see Pet. 9, 24–25 (Petitioner referring to
`Thomas’s “GUIs”). The user may freeze the delivery on one device of the
`on-demand media at a particular point, and later resume, via a user control
`option, the delivery at that particular point or from a different point.
`Ex. 1034, 10:24–36; 17:22–33; Pet. 25–26. Petitioner, relying on the
`testimony of Dr. Wolfe, reasons, inter alia, that one would have combined
`the references’ teachings because the references address the same problems
`in similar ways, the combination would yield predictable results, and
`Thomas’s user selectable options would improve upon Katz’s bookmarking
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01811
`Patent 8,527,640 B2
`
`system. Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶ 455); see also id. at 11–12, 21. We are
`persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently accounted for this limitation.
`
`Limitation 1[E] requires the continuation of the presentation on the
`first device, if the presentation was not stopped in response to the first user
`input, with the user control of the time position on the first device set
`independently of the user control of time position on the second device.
`Katz discloses the airport example where two independent streams are
`created, with someone at home continuing to watch the presentation beyond
`the bookmark set when the user left for the airport and the user at the airport
`continuing the presentation at the bookmarked location. Ex. 1033, 10:36–
`11:16, 11:56–67; Pet. 29. We understand Petitioner to argue that one of
`ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have the two streams
`independently controllable. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶ 459; Ex. 1033
`(Katz) 6:15–23). In support, Dr. Wolfe opines that a person of ordinary skill
`in the art at the time of the invention would find it obvious—in view of
`“well-known streaming technologies” and Katz’s disclosure of delivering
`streams of different video formats to different devices (Ex. 1033, 6:15–
`23)—that the two devices, the one at home and the one at the airport, would
`be sophisticated and independently controllable with regard to playback
`timing. Ex. 1028 ¶ 459; see Pet. 29. We are persuaded that Petitioner has
`sufficiently accounted for this limitation.
`
`Lastly, limitation 1[F] recites “the continuous media resource is to be
`viewed by a consumer.” Katz discloses the use of on-demand systems by
`consumers and subscribers, Ex. 1033, 1:23–26, 2:9–15, and offers the airport
`example involving a user at home and at the airport, id. at 10:36–40, 11:56–
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01811
`Patent 8,527,640 B2
`
`67; Pet. 29. We are persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently accounted for
`this limitation.
`
`Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would establish
`unpatentability of claim 1 as obvious over Katz and Thomas.
`4. Claims 5, 12, 13, 26, 32, 36, 68, 73, 95, 102, 112–114, 121,
`128, 141, 170, 171, and 188
`Claims 5, 12, and 13 are independent claims. Each of the remaining
`
`claims listed in the heading above depends directly from claim 1. We have
`reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence presented on pages 30–51 of
`the Petition, and determine that Petitioner has, on the record before us,
`shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the
`unpatentability of each of claims 5, 12, 13, 26, 32, 36, 68, 73, 95, 102, 112–
`114, 121, 128, 141, 170, 171, and 188 as unpatentable over Katz and
`Thomas.
`
`5. Claims 2, 11, and 18
`Independent claim 2 is somewhat similar to claim 1, and refers to a
`
`“computer” and a “media player” rather than a first and second device set,
`respectively. Claim 2 requires “creating a state record . . . that includes
`continuous media resource identity data and a designation of a particular
`time position in the presentation of the continuous media resource on the
`computer.” Claim 2 further requires “transferring the state record to a media
`player.” Petitioner does not concisely and adequately explain how Katz or
`Thomas individually or together teach transferring to a media player (i.e. a
`second device) a state record that includes a media resource identification
`and a time position designation, and does not adequately explain how
`subject matter with that feature would have been rendered obvious.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01811
`Patent 8,527,640 B2
`
`Petitioner argues that Thomas teaches this feature, asserting that
`
`Thomas teaches uploading “relocation data” to the server, and then
`downloading “relocation data” to another device where the “relocation data”
`is specifically user data. Pet. 31–33. The user data includes user
`preferences such as volume settings, favorite channels, and the like. See,
`e.g., Ex. 1034, 13:64–14:3; see also Pet. 31 (citing the same). While this
`might be arguably “state record” data in a general sense, Petitioner does not
`persuade us that this is the specific “state record” data recited earlier in the
`claim, i.e., a media resource identification and a time position designation.
`Petitioner also argues that the “user . . . is presented with time-position”
`data, pointing to Thomas’s allowing the user to select from multiple frozen
`programs and to rewind from a frozen position, but Petitioner does not
`explain adequately how the ability to rewind or select a program necessarily
`requires “present[ing] time-position” data as implicitly argued. Pet. 32
`(citing Ex. 1034, 11:1–6, 17:32–33). Petitioner also argues that Katz
`describes transmitting a bookmark from a server, the MODS, to another
`device “where a user is asked which bookmark’s time-code is the most
`current” in order for the user to select the proper bookmark from among
`copies stored on the MODS and ISP servers that have fallen out of
`synchronization. Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1033, 8:27–33, 8:42–44). Petitioner
`does not adequately explain, however, how the cited portions of Katz
`support the proposition that bookmark selection necessarily requires the user
`to be asked about or presented with a time position designation. The cited
`portions of Katz do not indicate that a state record must be transferred to the
`second device in order for the user to indicate which of the MODS or ISP
`server bookmarks is correct.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01811
`Patent 8,527,640 B2
`
`Independent claim 11 similarly requires “transmitting . . . the state
`
`data to the second device set” with “the state data including a designation of
`a particular time position in the presentation of the continuous media
`resource on the first device set.” Independent claim 18 calls for receiving, at
`the second device set, state information including a particular time positon in
`the presentation. Petitioner relies on the same unpersuasive arguments made
`in the context of the similar limitation of claim 2. Pet. 38, 44.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown
`a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the
`unpatentability of claims 2, 11, and 18 as obvious over Katz and Thomas.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would
`
`prevail in establishing the unpatentability of each of claims 1, 5, 12, 13, 26,
`32, 36, 68, 73, 95, 102, 112–114, 121, 128, 141, 170, 171, and 188 of the
`’640 patent. Petitioner has not, however, shown a reasonable likelihood that
`it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 2, 11, and 18 of
`the ’640 patent.
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, inter partes review is
`
`instituted as to claims 1, 5, 12, 13, 26, 32, 36, 68, 73, 95, 102, 112–114, 121,
`128, 141, 170, 171, and 188 of the ’640 patent on the ground of obviousness
`over Katz and Thomas pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103;
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01811
`Patent 8,527,640 B2
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the ground of
`
`unpatentability listed above, and no other ground of unpatentability is
`instituted for trial; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that inter partes review is commenced on the
`
`entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Chun M. Ng
`Vinay P. Sathe
`Patrick J. McKeever
`Miguel J. Bombach
`Kevin E. Kantharia
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`PerkinsServiceConvergentMediaIPR@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Matthew Juren
`Barry Bumgardner
`NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C.
`matthew@nelbum.com
`barry@nelbum.com
`
`18
`
`
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
