Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 7
`
`Entered: March 17, 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 IPR2016-01813
`Patent 8,689,273 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
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01813
`Patent 8,689,273 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`A. Background and Summary
`Netflix, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 8,689,273 B2 (“the ’273 patent,” Ex. 1030).
`Paper 2 (“Pet.”). The Petition challenges the patentability of claims 1–22 of
`the ’273 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 1–22 of
`the ’273 patent.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`One or both parties identify, as matters involving or related to the
`
`’273 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), IPR2016-01811 (U.S. Patent
`No. 8,527,640), IPR2016-01812 (U.S. Patent No. 8,640,1831), and
`IPR2016-01814 (U.S. Patent No. 8,914,840). Pet. 2; Paper 4.
`
`
`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.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01813
`Patent 8,689,273 B2
`
`
`C. The ’273 Patent
`The ’273 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 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. 1030, 3:10–23 (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 ’273 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 20:5–11.
`
`The multiple input/output device sets described in the ’273 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. 1030, 37:35–39. This management process can “be based on and
`compatible with related lower-level processes and standards defined for
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01813
`Patent 8,689,273 B2
`
`linking such existing devices and systems . . . based on UPnP, HAVi, OSGi,
`Rendezvous and/or the like.” Id. at 37:45–49. 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 37:49–54.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1 is the sole independent claim of the ’273 patent. The
`
`remaining challenged claims, claims 2–22 directly or indirectly depend from
`Claim 1. Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed annotations2 inserted
`for identifying specific limitations, is illustrative:
`1.
`A method for use in a second computerized device set
`which is configured for wireless communication using a wireless
`communications protocol that enables communication with a
`first computerized device set, wherein the first and second
`computerized device sets include respective first and second
`continuous media players, the method comprising:
`
`[A]
`receiving discovery information 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 the second computerized
`device set to determine that the first computerized device set is
`capable of supporting selected functions;
`
`[B] making available to a user a first user interface that
`allows the user to enable communications with the first
`computerized device set;
`
`[C] making available to the user a second user interface
`that allows the user to add a particular content item to a list of
`user-selected content items;
`
`
`2 We utilize Petitioner’s annotations for claim 1 but have retained the
`paragraphing from the issued patent.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01813
`Patent 8,689,273 B2
`
`
`[D] wirelessly transmitting, in accordance with a
`
`wireless local area network protocol, an identification of the
`particular content item from the second computerized device set
`for subsequent use by the first computerized device set to
`facilitate presenting the particular content item on the first
`computerized device set;
`
`[E] wherein the supported selected functions include at
`least receiving of the identification of the particular content item
`and the presenting of the particular content item; and
`
`[F] wherein the particular content item is not presented
`on the second computerized device set during presentation on the
`first computerized device set, and [G] the first user interface and
`the second user interface together comprise a unified user
`interface, wherein the unified user interface presents a second set
`of user input controls that allow the user to add the particular
`content item to the list of user-selected content items, and a first
`set of user input controls that allow the user to enable
`communications with the first computerized device set,
`
`[H] wherein the particular content item comprises a
`continuous media content item,
`
`[I] wherein the list comprises at least one of a list of
`bookmarked content items, a list of favorite content items, and a
`list of saved content items,
`
`[J] wherein the first computerized device set and the
`second computerized device set are independently usable.
`Ex. 1030, 164:26–165:5.
`
`Reference
`Zintel
`
`Palm
`
`Janik
`
`E. Applied References
`Dates
`US 6,910,068 B2 Filed Mar. 16, 2001;
`Issued June 21, 2005
`US 2001/0042107 Filed Jan. 8, 2001;
`Published Nov. 15, 2001
`US 7,130,616 B2 Filed Aug. 7, 2001;
`Issued Oct. 31, 2006
`
`Exhibit No.
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01813
`Patent 8,689,273 B2
`
`
`Reference
`Vallone
`
`Dates
`US 6,847,778 B1 Filed Mar. 30, 2000;
`Issued Jan. 25, 2005
`
`Exhibit No.
`Ex. 1008
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe, dated
`
`Sept. 15, 2016, (Ex. 1028) in support of its arguments.
`
`
`
`F. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`Reference[s]
`Basis
`Claim(s)
`Janik, Zintel, and Palm
`§ 103(a) 1–17 and 19–22
`Janik, Zintel, Palm, and Vallone
`§ 103(a) 18
`Janik, Zintel, Palm, and Vallone
`§ 103(a) 1–22
`
`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).
`the list comprises at least one of a list of bookmarked content items,
`a list of favorite content items, and a list of saved content items
`Petitioner asks us to construe the above phrase and argues that, under
`
`the broadest reasonable construction, it means: “the list includes at least one
`of a list of bookmarked content items, a list of favorite content items, or a
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01813
`Patent 8,689,273 B2
`
`list of saved content items.” Pet. 9. In other words, Petitioner contends the
`phrase should be read to be disjunctive and to require only one list of one of
`the types of listed content items (e.g., bookmarked, favorite, or saved) rather
`than one list containing lists of each of the three types of content items. See
`id. at 9–11. Petitioner contends that “[t]he terms themselves, the claim
`language as a whole, and the portion of the specification that discuss these
`terms are broad – a conjunctive interpretation is inconsistent with the ’273
`disclosure.” Id. at 9.
`
`As to the Specification, Dr. Wolfe testifies:
`The ’273 patent specification does not disclose a single
`embodiment (or even provide a single suggestion) where the list
`is a list of bookmarked content items and a list of favorite content
`items and a list of saved content items. In fact, whenever the
`terms favorite, bookmark, or saved are mentioned in the
`specification, they are mentioned randomly, with no embodiment
`or suggestion that ties them together. See, e.g., EX1030 at 62:11-
`14; 115:65-67; 116:3-7; 135:42-48; 142:45-47; 76:56-60; 79:7-
`9; 114:37-40.
`Ex. 1028 ¶ 256; see Pet. 9.
`
`Petitioner argues the prosecution history also supports a disjunctive
`reading, and asserts that any ambiguity “appears to have been
`unintentionally added by the Examiner.” Pet. 10. Near the end of
`prosecution, an Examiner’s amendment added the subject phrase to
`prosecution claim 165 and canceled dependent claim 172. Ex. 1035, 29–31.
`Petitioner notes that claim 172 had been written in Markush format, and
`asserts that that formatting was lost during the amendment. Pet. 10.
`Specifically, claim 172 recited: “The method of claim 171, wherein the list
`comprises a member of the group consisting of a list of bookmarked
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01813
`Patent 8,689,273 B2
`
`selections, a list of favorite programs, and a list of saved programs.”
`Ex. 1035, 134 (emphasis added).
`
`On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine “the
`list comprises at least one of” refers to a list that is at least one member of
`the group consisting of a list of bookmarked content items, a list of favorite
`content items, and a list of saved content items. The term “one of” refers to
`all of the identified lists as a group rather than separately to each of the
`identified lists. To conclude otherwise is unduly restrictive.
`
`We determine that no other claim terms require express construction
`at this time.
`
`B. The Alleged Obviousness of the
`Claims 1–17 and 19–22 Over Janik, Zintel, and Palm
`Petitioner alleges that claims 1–17 and 19–22 of the ’273 patent
`
`would have been obvious over Janik, Zintel, and Palm. Pet. 18.
`1. Janik (Ex. 1007)
`Janik discloses a system and method for providing digital content on
`
`devices, management of such devices, and interactivity among the devices.
`Ex. 1007, Abstr. Digital data based on user specified preferences is
`automatically obtained and transferred from a wide area network to a
`computer. Id. at 4:36–38. The digital data is then automatically sent from
`the computer to a client device by wireless transmission. Id. at 38–40. A
`high-speed local wireless local area network (LAN) connects a PC, a storage
`gateway, and devices. Id. at 8:38–40; Fig. 1. Client devices include
`televisions, webpads, audio playback devices, and an Internet clock. Id.
`at 4:40; 12:31–40. “A webpad 92 is defined as a PDA 164 or other tablet-
`based portable computing device that includes a wireless LAN
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01813
`Patent 8,689,273 B2
`
`communication 70 capability.” Id. at 22:27–30. Janik describes that the
`webpad can be used to select content for playback on the television. Id. at
`25:1–8. Figure 27 of Janik illustrates such an arrangement and is reproduced
`below:
`
`
`Figure 27 of Janik is a schematic diagram of an embodiment including
`computer 34, television 162, webpad 92, and access to the Internet. Id.
`at 5:44–46; 22:20–27. Janik’s system allows the streaming of digital content
`from the internet, the storage gateway, or PC to client devices. See id.
`at 9:1–10, 10:61–11:3
`Janik teaches various user interfaces. See, e.g., id., Figs. 3–5, 15–16.
`
`Janik explains, regarding one type of interface:
`A content editor is a part of GUI [graphical user interface]
`module 46 and may be used for managing and manipulating
`content 10 that will be sent to networked client device 78. In one
`embodiment, an audio device content editor 24 is used to
`program and control content 10 for audio playback device 86. In
`an alternative embodiment, an Internet clock content editor 40 is
`used to program and control content for Internet clock 82.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01813
`Patent 8,689,273 B2
`
`Id. at 14:53–59. The audio device content editor allows the creation of user-
`defined playlists, and “the Internet clock content editor 40 manages content
`10 that is associated with a scheduled routine, such as a wakeup routine
`[and] allows the user to associate content 10 such as audio or video files
`(stored on the user's hard disk drive 30 or streamed over Internet 8) with an
`associated time and date.” Id. at 14:62–67, 15:31–37.
`
`Janik discloses that the core module running on the PC provides an
`auto-discovery function, explaining “[c]lient devices 78 connected to PC 34
`via LAN 70 will automatically appear as a specific client device control bar
`26 on console 16 located on PC 34 desktop 12.” Ex. 1007, 9:60–10:3,
`10:46–50, 11:48–51. “One or more client device control bars 26 constitute
`console 16, shown in FIG. 3 through FIG. 11.” Id. at 11:51–53. Janik does
`not discuss the details of the auto-discovery function.
`2. Zintel (Ex. 1003)
`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
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01813
`Patent 8,689,273 B2
`
`
`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
`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
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01813
`Patent 8,689,273 B2
`
`
`equipment
`heating/ventilation/air-conditioning
`recorder,
`(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.
`3. Palm (Ex. 1006)
`Palm discloses a multimedia discovery system consisting of media
`
`devices 105 networked to media servers 115 on local or wide area networks.
`Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7, 43, Fig. 1. Figure 1 of Palm is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 of Palm illustrates a home-network based multimedia discovery
`system. Id. ¶ 14. Media devices 105 can be TVs, STBs, PCs, laptops, PDAs
`or similar devices. Id. ¶¶ 64–65, 71. Media devices 105 can automatically
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01813
`Patent 8,689,273 B2
`
`discover local or remote media servers 115 using UPnP protocol, and use a
`GUI to browse, select, and receive media content stored on media servers
`115. Id. ¶¶ 7, 42–43, 55–61, 73–79. The media content can be audio or
`video. Id. at ¶¶ 21, 53. When a user of device 105 selects media content, a
`URL identifying the media content is sent to media device 105 to allow
`media device 105 to retrieve and play the content from media server 115.
`Id. at ¶¶ 80–83, 88.
`4. Analysis of Claim 1 in View of Janik, Zintel, and Palm
`For reasons discussed below, Petitioner has shown a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail in establishing unpatentability of claim 1 as
`obvious over Janik, Zintel, and Palm3. At the outset, we discuss how
`Petitioner has proposed to combine the teachings of these references.
`
`Petitioner asserts:
`Janik (EX1007) discloses a method for discovering audio/video
`devices on a network, allowing a user to generate a list of content
`items, and wirelessly sending content items from one networked
`device to another for presentation. Zintel (EX1003) discloses a
`Universal Plug and Play (“UPnP”) discovery protocol to
`determine the capabilities of networked devices. Palm (EX1006)
`teaches
`that a networked multimedia device uses an
`identification of a content item to request and receive content
`from another networked device.
`Pet. 6; see also id. at 18.
`
`As noted above, Janik discloses the auto-discovery of client devices
`but does not teach the details of the discovery function. Petitioner explains
`
`
`3 Petitioner relies on disclosures and teachings of the references not
`discussed in this decision. Features of the references discussed herein and
`citations thereto merely are exemplary.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01813
`Patent 8,689,273 B2
`
`that Zintel teaches the use of a UPnP discovery protocol and that Zintel
`“states that ‘UPnP makes it possible to initiate and control the transfer of
`bulk data (e.g. files) or [Audio/Video] A/V data streams from any device on
`the network, to any device on the network, under the control of any device
`on the network.’” Pet. 22–23 (quoting Ex. 1003, 5:26-29). In articulating
`reasoning why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
`teachings from Janik and Zintel, Petitioner further explains:
`Both Janik and Zintel disclose using device discovery to
`determine the capabilities [of] networked devices. Janik’s “auto-
`discovery” function enables client devices connected to a LAN
`to appear on a PC desktop’s console. EX1007 at 11:48-53,
`27:43-46, Fig. 3. The “auto-discovery” function allows software
`located in the PC and the storage gateway to process messages
`sent from client devices. Id. at 10:46-50, 11:48-53, 9:65-67,
`Fig. 1. Similarly, Zintel discloses a UPnP discovery protocol to
`determine the identities and capabilities of networked devices.
`EX1003 at Abstract. Zintel teaches that the “User Control Point”
`initiates discovery and obtains capabilities of “Controlled
`Devices.” Id. at 6:60-64, 8:57-67. Accordingly, a User Control
`Point can obtain information about the types of “Services” that
`are offered by a controlled device. Id. at 20:62-21:12. A Service
`is a UPnP controllable entity with an associated URL used by a
`User Control Point to control the Controlled Device. Id. at 9:1-
`2, 11:25-37. Accordingly, a POSITA would have been
`motivated to combine Zintel’s teachings relating to discovery
`and description with Janik. EX1028 at ¶343.
`Pet. 23.
`
`Regarding combining the teachings of Palm with those of Janik and
`Zintel, Petitioner further reasons that:
`A POSITA [would] be motivated to combine Palm and Janik
`because they would recognize that Palm’s multimedia device
`would improve the efficiency of Janik’s audio playback device.
`EX1028 at ¶345. In a preferred embodiment, Janik’s audio
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01813
`Patent 8,689,273 B2
`
`
`playback device wirelessly transmits XML messages to the PC
`to access playlist information that is stored on the PC. EX1007
`at 16:57-65, 17:55-18:20. Palm teaches that a multimedia device
`requests and receives the entire playlist sent by the media server
`so that “all the information, required by the player to playback
`the list” is stored on the multimedia device. EX1006 at ¶¶79-80.
`Thus, a POSITA would be motivated to combine Janik with Palm
`because Palm discloses a simple addition to Janik’s system that
`would enable Janik’s audio playback device to have all the
`information it needs to playback content without constantly
`relying on the PC for retrieving such information. EX1028 at
`¶345.
`Id. at 24; see also id. at 39 (“A POSITA would have been motivated to
`combine Janik with Palm because it would use a known technique taught in
`Palm to improve a similar device taught in Janik.”) (citing Ex. 1028, ¶ 370).
`
`We are persuaded, on this record, that Petitioner has provided
`adequate reasoning with rational underpinnings to support combining the
`teachings of Janik, Zintel, and Palm in the manner proposed by Petitioner.
`a) Preamble of claim 1
`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
`communications protocol that enables communication with a
`first computerized device set, wherein the first and second
`computerized device sets include respective first and second
`continuous media players.
`Ex. 1030, 164:26–31.
`
`Petitioner explains that Janik teaches a “second computerized device
`set,” such as a PC, that is configured for wireless communication, e.g., IEEE
`802.11b or HomeRF technology, with a “first computerized device,” such as
`a television, PDA, an audio playback device connected to a stereo, or an
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01813
`Patent 8,689,273 B2
`
`Internet clock. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1007, 4:34–40, 7:26–45, 8:38–40, 31:62–
`64; Ex. 1028 ¶ 346). Petitioner further notes that Janik’s devices sets
`include continuous media players. Id. (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1028 ¶ 348).
`
`We are persuaded that Petitioner has adequately accounted for the
`preamble of claim 1.
`
`
`
`b) Limitation 1[A]
`Claim 1 further recites:
`receiving discovery information 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 the second computerized
`device set to determine that the first computerized device set is
`capable of supporting selected functions.
`Ex. 1030, 164:32–38. Petitioner maintains that Janik teaches receiving
`discovery information, an “auto-discovery” function. Pet. 27 (citing, inter
`alia, Ex. 1007, 11:48–53, Fig. 3, Ex. 1028 ¶ 350). Petitioner turns to Zintel
`for the details of UPnP protocols for discovery and description, Pet. 28, and
`maintains that the claim limitation’s reference to “discovery information”
`corresponds to the “description” aspect of UPnP in Zintel (id. at 28 n.3).
`Specifically, Petitioner asserts:
`Zintel describes in great 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); EX1028 at
`¶352. . . . With respect to description, Zintel discloses that
`control points request and receive “Description Document[s]”
`which are “used by a User Control Point or UPnP Bridge to learn
`the capabilities of a Controlled Device.” EX1003 at 8:57-67; see
`also id. at 2:67-3:20; 6:25-28 (devices provide XML documents
`“describe[ing]
`the capabilities of
`the device”); 9:48-52
`(description documents enable control of services by other
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01813
`Patent 8,689,273 B2
`
`
`devices “without any prior or persistent knowledge of the
`capabilities” of the service); 49:19-27; 65:21-27.
`Pet. 28–29 (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) that provides
`detailed information about how to interact with the service. Pet. 29 (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. 29–30 (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.” Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1003,
`49:47–51, Fig. 27; Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 355–356; Ex. 1010, 13, Ex. 1011, 105,
`Ex. 1020, 2). The assertion is supported by the testimony of Dr. Wolfe.
`Ex. 1028 ¶ 355–356.
`
`Referring back to the exemplary configuration of Janik illustrated in
`Figure 27 and relying on the testimony of Dr. Wolfe, Petitioner reasons that,
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01813
`Patent 8,689,273 B2
`
`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 PC (the second computerized device) of Janik. Pet. 30–31.
`Specifically, the PC would discover—using UPnP protocols discussed by
`Zintel—the capabilities of the other client devices (the first computerized
`devices, e.g., the webpad/PDA and TV) by retrieving description documents
`that indicate the services supported by the devices. Id. Petitioner explains
`that the information obtained from, for example, the audio playback device
`would allow Janik’s PC to determine that the audio playback device could
`support selected functions and that the received SCPD would describe the
`commands that can be invoked. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 8:24–31; 16:22–30;
`19:23–20:12, Figs. 15, 27; Ex. 1028 ¶ 357).
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`adequately accounted for limitation 1[A] of claim 1.
`c) Limitation 1[B]
`Claim 1 further recites: “making available to a user a first user
`
`interface that allows the user to enable communications with the first
`computerized device set.” Ex. 1030, 164:39–41.
`
`For this interface feature, Petitioner points to associated client device
`control bars 26 on console 16 on the PC desktop 12 (with the PC being the
`second computerized device set) in Janik’s Figure 3, and maintains that that
`interface enables communication with an audio playback device, a webpad,
`and Internet clock (first computerized device sets). Pet. 33–34 (citing
`Ex. 1007, 16:4–26, 18:21–37, 21:29–47, Fig. 3; Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 362-363).
`Petitioner additionally states:
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01813
`Patent 8,689,273 B2
`
`
`Janik also teaches “a device controller GUI on [the] PC,” that is
`“launched from console 16 by right clicking on client device
`control bar 26 on console 16 associated with the specific device
`that is to be controlled.” [Ex. 1007] at 18:21-25; see also id. at
`Figs. 15-16. According to Janik, “[t]he function of a device
`controller is to remotely control networked client devices 78, and
`to also allow for the setting of certain preferences and features
`for client devices 78.” Id. at 18:27-30.
`Pet. 34.
`
`We are persuaded that Petitioner has adequately accounted for
`limitation 1[B] of claim 1.
`d) Limitation 1[C]
`Claim 1 further recites: “making available to the user a second user
`
`interface that allows the user to add a particular content item to a list of user-
`selected content items.” Ex. 1030, 164:42–44. Petitioner maintains that
`Janik teaches several user interfaces that satisfy this limitation, and points to,
`as one example, the “audio device content editor” shown in Janik’s Figure 5.
`Pet. 34–36 (citations omitted). Janik explains that “[a]udio device content
`editor 24 provides the user with the ability to group audio files (tracks) into
`user-defined playlists, which are text association[s] that contain[] a list of
`and paths to audio files or the URLs or IP addresses of audio streams, and
`are stored in system control application database 96.” Ex. 1007, 14:62–67.
`The functionality of the audio device content editor includes the ability to
`add a track to a playlist. Id. at 15:8–21. Petitioner also points to Janik’s
`Internet clock content selection web-page as another example of the recited
`“second user interface.” Pet. 36; see Ex. 1007, 15:31–50, Fig. 9.
`
`We are persuaded that Petitioner has adequately accounted for
`limitation 1[C] of claim 1.
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01813
`Patent 8,689,273 B2
`
`
`
`
`e) Limitation 1[D]
`Claim 1 further recites:
`wirelessly transmitting, in accordance with a wireless local area
`network protocol, an identification of the particular content item
`from the second computerized device set for subsequent use by
`the first computerized device set to facilitate presenting the
`particular content item on the first computerized device set.
`E