`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`MINDGEEK, S.A.R.L., MINDGEEK USA, INC.,
`and PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
`PETITIONERS
`
`V.
`
`SKKY INCORPORATED
`PATENT OWNER
`_____________________
`
`CASE IPR2014-01236
`PATENT 7,548,875
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,548,875
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1070
`Page 1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
`II. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 2
`A. Overview of U.S. Patent No. 7,548,875 ............................................................ 2
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................... 4
`A.
`“Wireless Device Means” .................................................................................... 5
`1.
`“Wireless Device Means” should be interpreted as a means-plus-
`function claim element. .............................................................................. 5
`If “wireless device means” is not a means-plus-function claim
`element, “wireless device means” should be construed as “a
`device capable of receiving data over a cellular communications
`network and having multiple processors wherein one or more
`processors is primarily dedicated to processing the compressed
`multimedia data.” ...................................................................................... 15
`i.
`The intrinsic record of the ’875 patent discloses that a
`“wireless device means” is a device capable of receiving
`data over a cellular communications network. ............................. 16
`ii. The intrinsic record of the ’875 patent discloses a “wireless
`device means” comprising of multiple processors. ..................... 17
`iii. The intrinsic record of the ’875 patent discloses that a
`“wireless device means” includes one or more processors
`primarily dedicated to processing the compressed
`multimedia data. ............................................................................... 23
`“Segment of a Full Song, Musical Composition, or Other Audio
`Recording or Visual Recordings.” .................................................................... 25
`IV. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 26
`A. U.S. Patent No. 7,065,342 (“Rolf”) ................................................................. 26
`B. MP3 Guide .......................................................................................................... 27
`C. OFDM/FM ........................................................................................................ 27
`V. ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................. 28
`A. Petitioners have not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate by a
`preponderance of the evidence that all claim elements of the
`
`B.
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1070
`Page 2
`
`

`

`iii.
`
`challenged claims are disclosed in the references relied upon by
`Petitioners in the Petition or that there is a motivation to combine the
`references as proposed by Petitioners. ............................................................ 29
`B. The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Precedent Precludes the Use
`of Hindsight in an Obviousness Analysis. ...................................................... 30
`C. Petitioners’ Ground 1: Rolf in View of MP3 Guide Does Not Render
`Claims 1-3, 5, 15-21, and 23 of the ’875 Patent Obvious. ............................ 33
`1. The combination of Rolf and MP3 Guide does not disclose a
`wireless device means (Claim 1). ............................................................. 33
`i.
`The combination of Rolf and MP3 Guide does not disclose
`multiple processors (Claim 1). ........................................................ 33
`ii. Rolf and MP3 Guide do not disclose a “wireless device
`means” having one or more processors primarily dedicated
`to processing compressed multimedia data. ................................. 35
`If the Board ultimately adopts Patent Owner’s proposed
`means-plus-function claim construction for “wireless
`device means,” then Rolf fails to disclose this limitation for
`the same reasons. ............................................................................. 36
`2. The combination of Rolf and MP3 Guide does not disclose the
`delivery of a compressed audio and/or visual file to a “wireless
`device means” independent of an Internet connection or other
`computer based system (Claim 18). ........................................................ 37
`3. The combination of Rolf and MP3 Guide does not disclose a
`segment of a full song, musical composition or other audio
`recording or visual recordings (Claim 21). ............................................. 39
`D. Petitioners’ Ground 3: Rolf in View of MP3 Guide and OFDM/FM
`Does Not Render Claim 22 of the ’875 Patent Obvious. ............................. 41
`1. Dr. Kotzin overstates the use of orthogonal frequency-division
`multiplexing at the time of invention. .................................................... 42
`2. Rolf teaches away from using the method disclosed in
`OFDM/FM (Claim 22). ........................................................................... 43
`3. Rolf in view of MP3 Guide modified according to the teachings
`in OFDM/FM does not disclose a functioning method
`(Claim 22). .................................................................................................. 44
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1070
`Page 3
`
`

`

`4. Choosing to modify Rolf in view of MP3 Guide with the
`teachings of OFDM/FM would require undue experimentation
`without a reasonable expectation of success (Claim 22). ..................... 47
`5. A person of ordinary skill would not be motivated to combine
`Rolf in view of MP3 Guide with OFDM/FM (Claim 22). .................. 48
`E. Regardless of whether the Board decides that “wireless device means”
`is or is not a means-plus-function limitation, Claims 18, 21, and 22 are
`valid for the reasons set forth in Sections V(A-D). ....................................... 52
`F. The Inter Partes Review Initiated in Relation to U.S. Patent
`No. 7,548,875 Deprives Patent Owner of Its Right to a Jury Trial
`Pursuant to the Seventh Amendment of the United States
`Constitution. ....................................................................................................... 53
`VI. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 58
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1070
`Page 4
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`02 Micro Int’l v. Beyond Innovation Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................... 4
`
`Abbott Labs v. Cordis Corp.,
`710 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................................... 56
`
`AGA Med. Corp. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs.,
`No. 10-3734, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139989 (D. Minn. Sept. 28,
`2012) ................................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 31
`
`Chi. Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC,
`677 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................... 11, 14
`
`Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor,
`478 U.S. 833 (1986) ........................................................................................................ 53
`
`Conopco, Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co.,
`Case No. IPR2013-00510, Paper No. 9 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2014) ................................ 39
`
`Continential Can Co. v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir 1991) ...................................................................................... 51
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`778 F.3d 1271 (Fed, Cir. 2015) ....................................................................................... 5
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................... 31
`
`In re Gurley,
`27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .......................................................................................... 42
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbot Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................... 30
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1070
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Joy Techs., Inc. v. Manbeck,
`959 F.2d 226 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ........................................................................................ 54
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007) .............................................................................................. 29, 30
`
`Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................................... 46
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`53 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) .......................................................................... 4
`
`McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Aultman,
`169 U.S. 606 (1898) ........................................................................................................ 54
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................... 30, 31
`
`Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.,
`778 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ....................................................................................... 7
`
`Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff,
`758 F.2d 594 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .................................................................................. 54, 55
`
`Pozen Inc. v. Par. Pharm., Inc.,
`696 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................... 42
`
`Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA Inc.,
`566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................. 31, 47
`
`Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc.,
`769 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................................... 6
`
`Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.,
`649 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................... 43
`
`Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd,
`492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................... 31
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................................................................................... 5, 15
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1070
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................................. 30
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 ................................................................................................................. 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(8) .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121 ................................................................................................................ 55
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.220 .................................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(1) ......................................................................................................... 55
`
`Institution Decision, Paper No. 10 ...................................................................................... 5
`
`Preliminary Patent Owner Statement, Paper 8 ................................................................... 5
`
`U.S. Const. amd. vii ....................................................................................................... passim
`
`U.S. Const. Art. I .................................................................................................................. 52
`
`U.S. Const. Art. III ............................................................................................................... 52
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1070
`Page 7
`
`

`

`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,548,875
`
`Date
`Accessed
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`Supplemental Amendment and Response, dated April 7,
`2006
`
`Nokia, “Nokia Unveils Worlds First All-In-One
`Communicatory for the Americas,” dated September 19,
`1996
`Bier, Jeff, “The Evolution of DSP Processors,” dated
`November 14, 1997
`
`2005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,044,089
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`Frodigh, Magnus, et al., Future-Generation Wireless Networks,
`IEEE Personal Communications, Oct. 2001 at 10-17.
`
`Rappaport, T. S., et al. Wireless Communications: Past Events
`and a Future Perspective, IEEE Communications Magazine,
`May 2002 at 148-161.
`Martone, Max, Space-Time Open Architectures for Broadband
`Wireless Data Communications: Above the Log2 (1+SNR)
`Bit/Sec/Hz Barrier, Global Telecommunications
`Conference, 2000, vol. 1 at 203-207.
`Vaughan-Nichols, Steven J., OFDM: Back to the Wireless
`Future, Computer, Dec. 2002 at 19-21.
`
`Wight, Jim, The OFDM Challenge, EE Times, Oct. 2001,
`available at
`http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1204333.
`Ojanpera, Tero and Prasad, Ramjee, An Overview of Air
`Interface Multiple Access for IMT-2000/UMTS, IEEE
`Communications Magazine, Sept. 1998.
`iPod + iTunes Timeline, Apple Press Info, 2001-2010,
`available at
`https://www.apple.com/pr/products/ipodhistory/
`
`Filed/
`Served
`Filed
`November
`13, 2014
`Filed
`November
`13, 2014
`Filed
`November
`13, 2014
`Filed
`November
`13, 2014
`Filed
`November
`13, 2014
`Filed April
`30, 2015
`
`Filed April
`29, 2015
`
`Filed April
`29, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed April
`29, 2015
`
`3/10/2015 Filed April
`29, 2015
`
`Filed April
`29, 2015
`
`4/13/2015 Filed April
`29, 2015
`
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1070
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`Number
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`Description
`
`Apple iPod (Original/Scroll Wheel) 5 GB, 10 GB Specs, Every
`iPod.com, available at
`http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/ipod/specs/ip
`od.html
`Apple iPod touch (Original/1st Gen) 8, 16, 32 GB Specs, Every
`iPod.com, available at
`http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/ipod/specs/ip
`od-touch-specs.html
`Nokia’s classic mobile phones: in pictures, The Telegraph,
`available at
`http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/nokia/8465809/
`Nokias-classic-mobile-phones-in-pictures.html?image=2
`Nokia 3210 specifications and reviews, Esato, available at
`http://www.esato.com/phones/Nokia-3210-6
`
`Nokia 3210 Teardown, iFixit, 2015, available at
`https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nokia+3210+Teardow
`n/11328
`LTE Release 8 of 3GPP Mobile Standard, 3GPP The Mobile
`Broadband Standard, available at
`http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-
`acronyms/98-lte
`Zyren, Jim, Overview of the 3GPP Long Term Evolution Physical
`Layer, available at
`http://www.freescale.com/files/wireless_comm/doc/whit
`e_paper/3GPPEVOLUTIONWP.pdf, July, 2007.
`Phadke, Arun G., Handbook of Electrical Engineering
`Calculations, 1999 at 170.
`
`Declaration of Professor Kevin C. Almeroth in Support of
`Patent Owner’s Response to Inter Partes Review of United
`States Patent No. 7,548,875
`Declaration of Andrew J. Kabat in Support of Patent
`Owner’s Response to Inter Partes Review of United States
`Patent No. 7,548,875
`Cooper v. Lee, Case No. 1:14-cv-672, Dkt. No. 15,
`Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion
`for Summary Judgment & in Opposition to Plaintiffs’
`Motion for Summary Judgment (E.D. Va. July 23, 2014).
`
`Filed/
`Date
`Served
`Accessed
`4/13/2015 Filed April
`29, 2015
`
`
`4/13/2015 Filed April
`29, 2015
`
`
`4/20/2015 Filed April
`29, 2015
`
`
`4/13/2015 Filed April
`29, 2015
`
`4/13/2015 Filed April
`29, 2015
`
`4/24/2015 Filed April
`29, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed April
`29, 2015
`
`
`Filed April
`29, 2015
`
`Filed April
`29, 2015
`
`Filed April
`29, 2015
`
`Filed April
`29, 2015
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1070
`Page 9
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Skky, Inc. (“Skky”) provides this response under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 316(a)(8) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.220. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has instituted
`
`this inter partes review to consider whether claims 1-3, 5, 15-21, and 23 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,548,875 (“the ’875 patent”) are obvious over Rolf and MP3 Guide and whether
`
`Claim 22 of the ’875 patent is obvious over Rolf, MP3 Guide, and OFDM/FM. See,
`
`Paper 10 at 10.
`
`Petitioners’ proposed combinations do not disclose all of the claimed elements
`
`in the challenged claims. Independent Claim 1 claims a method of wirelessly
`
`delivering compressed audio and/or visual data to a “wireless device means.”
`
`Petitioners’ suggest that the data transmission method described in Rolf, modified by
`
`MP3 Guide, renders the claim obvious. However, Rolf does not teach the claim
`
`element “a wireless device means.”
`
`Similarly, Petitioners’ prior art combination does not teach the inventive
`
`elements of dependent Claims 18, 21, and 22. For Claim 18, the prior art does not
`
`teach wireless delivery of compressed audio and/or video file to a “wireless device
`
`means” without an Internet connection or other computer based system. Nor have
`
`Petitioners provided any disclosure in the references that renders obvious transmitting
`
`a segment of a song or video as claimed in Claim 21. Further, Petitioners’ suggested
`
`combination of Rolf and MP3 Guide modified by OFDM/FM does not render Claim
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1070
`Page 10
`
`

`

`22 obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to
`
`combine the references and such proposed combination would result in an inoperable
`
`system. For these reasons, and the reasons discussed in further detail below, Claims 1-
`
`3, 5, 15-21, 22, and 23 are nonobvious over the asserted reference and should be
`
`confirmed as valid.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Overview of U.S. Patent No. 7,548,875
`John Mikkelsen and Dr. Robert Freidson invented the claimed method of the
`
`’875 patent at the turn of the century, anticipating growing consumer demand to
`
`obtain rich media files such as CD-quality music, video, and images on their mobile
`
`devices. At the time, Internet access via cellular devices was rudimentary, at best
`
`offering simplistic websites consisting of textand basic audio tones. In contrast, Mr.
`
`Mikkelsen and Dr. Freidson envisioned a mobile Internet much like we know today –
`
`in which high quality multimedia files are delivered wirelessly to cellular devices. The
`
`’875 patent details a method of accomplishing such a delivery of rich media files to a
`
`cellular device.
`
`
`
`The ’875 patent, granted on June 16, 2009, claims priority to a provisional
`
`application, U.S. Application No. 60/301,115. At the time of filing, cellular phones
`
`and other similar wireless devices were unable to receive and play back content rich
`
`media. Ex. 1002 at 8. Although some phones were capable of downloading and
`
`playing simple media, playback was limited to low quality images and simple chimes or
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1070
`Page 11
`
`

`

`tones. Ex. 1001 at 1:34-38. The ’875 patent sought to make content rich media
`
`available on wireless devices, teaching a method of compressing, storing, and
`
`transmitting content rich media, such as video files and MP3 audio files, to a
`
`particularly structured wireless device. Id. at Claim 1.
`
`
`
`Rolf, the primary reference in this proceeding, was thoroughly considered by the
`
`Examiner during the prosecution of the ’875 patent. Indeed, Rolf was cited as the
`
`primary reference in multiple rejections during the examination of the ’875 patent.
`
`E.g., Ex. 1029 at 4.; Ex. 1034 at 4. However, each rejection was traversed and the
`
`prior art, including Rolf, was distinguished.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner met with the Examiner to discuss potential amendments to
`
`overcome Rolf and the other prior art that formed the basis of the Examiner’s
`
`rejections. Ex. 1003. During that meeting, the Examiner suggested amending the
`
`claims to recite “means” language to traverse the prior art. Id. During a second
`
`meeting, Patent Owner discussed what specific language would be acceptable to the
`
`Examiner. Ex. 1004. As a result of this meeting, under the guidance of the Examiner,
`
`Patent Owner submitted amended language that included the term “wireless device
`
`means.” Id.
`
`
`
`The Notice of Allowance included an Examiner’s Amendment inserting the
`
`same “wireless device means” language into the preamble of the independent claim.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 3-4. Further, the Examiner described Rolf as the closest prior art
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1070
`Page 12
`
`

`

`reference to the allowed claims. Id. at 8. Accompanying the amendment, the Examiner
`
`included a very detailed explanation of Rolf, including what Rolf did and did not
`
`disclose. Id. Specifically, the Examiner stated that Rolf failed to disclose a “wireless
`
`device means” because it did not teach one of skill in the art the structure of the
`
`“wireless device means.” Id. at 8. The Examiner noted that while Rolf did disclose a
`
`“mobile cellular telephone,” it did not disclose a “wireless device means.” Id. at 9.
`
`Distinguishing the two terms was their structure – specifically the structure disclosed
`
`in the ’875 patent of “Figs. 2 and 3 (at least page 14, line 6 through page 15, line 4),
`
`and others, and inclusive of ‘board 203’ which includes the ‘main blocks’ recited in
`
`page 14, lines 23-25 and the following supporting disclosure.” Id. at 2. Thus, the
`
`challenged claims were allowed after an extensive investigation of Rolf and the scope
`
`of the prior art.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Claim construction involves “determining the meaning and scope” of the claims
`
`of a patent. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 53 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en
`
`banc). A claim term is generally afforded the meaning the term “would have to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art after reviewing the intrinsic record at the time of
`
`invention.” 02 Micro Int’l v. Beyond Innovation Tech., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008). Often, “meaning of a claim term as understood by persons of skill in the art is
`
`not readily apparent.” Id. To facilitate this understanding, a patent applicant may act as
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1070
`Page 13
`
`

`

`his or her own lexicographer by imparting special meaning to the term in the
`
`specification or file history. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1996). Thus, by examining the intrinsic evidence, a person skilled in the art would
`
`be able to decipher the term’s meaning.
`
`A. “Wireless Device Means1”
`1.
`“Wireless Device Means” should be interpreted as a means-
`plus-function claim element.
`While Patent Owner recognizes that the Board determined that a means-plus-
`
`function analysis does not apply to the term “wireless device means” should not
`
`considered using means-plus-function analysis, see Institution Decision, Paper No. 10
`
`at 7, Patent Owner respectfully disagrees with the Board’s decision. Patent Owner
`
`incorporates by reference in its entirety its discussion on claim construction of this
`
`term presented in its Preliminary Patent Owner Statement, Paper 8 at 5-17.
`
`Nevertheless, Patent Owner sets forth again the argument below here in light of the
`
`Federal Circuit’s holding that issues decided in the Institution Decision are not
`
`appealable. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1276 (Fed, Cir. 2015).
`
`A means-plus-function claim allows a patentee to express a term as “a means or
`
`step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or
`
`1 Patent Owner is not waiving its right to propose a different construction, or
`
`constructions for other terms in the ’875 patent, along with supporting arguments, in
`
`a different forum as appropriate in that forum.
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1070
`Page 14
`
`

`

`acts in support thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Means-plus-function analysis follows a
`
`two-step process. First, the court must determine whether the claim invokes 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112 ¶ 6. Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc., 769 F.3d 1094, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2014). By
`
`using the word “means” the patentee creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim
`
`is a means plus function claim. Id. Here, Petitioners have not made any attempt to
`
`rebut this presumption. Pet. at 9. Indeed, Petitioners, Patent Owner, and the
`
`Examiner all agree that wireless device means invokes a means-plus-function
`
`limitation. Second, if the claim is a means-plus-function claim, a court construes the
`
`claim by identifying limiting structure, material, or acts in the specification. Robert
`
`Bosch, 769 F.3d at 1097.
`
`The term “wireless device means” should be construed as a means-plus-function
`
`claim per 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. The term is properly construed as having the following
`
`function and structure:
`
`Function:
`
`To request, wirelessly receive, and process a compressed audio
`
`and/or visual file.
`
`Structure:
`
`A device capable of receiving data over a cellular
`
`communications network and having multiple processors wherein one or more
`
`processors is primarily dedicated to processing the compressed audio and/or visual
`
`data and is operatively connected to non-volatile and volatile memory, bootstrap,
`
`analog interface, and a digital interface or equivalents thereof.
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1070
`Page 15
`
`

`

`The term “wireless device means,” added at the Examiner’s urging during
`
`prosecution to overcome the prior art, first appears in the preamble of Claim 1, which
`
`forms the antecedent basis for subsequent uses of the term. Ex. 1004 at 1-3.
`
`Accordingly, the preamble breathes life into the claim and must be considered in any
`
`proper construction. Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 778 F.3d 1021, 1024 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015) (preamble terms found to be limiting because they “provide antecedent
`
`basis for and are necessary to understand the positive limitations in the body of
`
`claims”).
`
`The preamble also includes functional language of “wirelessly delivering” the
`
`compressed file to the “wireless device means.” As such, the functional language of
`
`“wirelessly delivering” defines the function of the “wireless device means.” Applying
`
`ordinary canons of claim construction, examination of the specification and
`
`prosecution history demonstrates that the meaning of “wirelessly delivering” the
`
`compressed audio and/or visual file to the “wireless device means” includes
`
`requesting, wirelessly receiving, and processing the compressed file. E.g., AGA Med.
`
`Corp. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., No. 10-3734 (JNE/JSM), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139989
`
`at * 30-31 (D. Minn. Sept. 28, 2012). Thus, based on the language of the claim, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the function of the wireless device
`
`means as requesting, wirelessly receiving, and processing a compressed audio and/or
`
`visual file. Ex. 2021 at ¶¶ 30, 32.
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1070
`Page 16
`
`

`

`The specification is replete with support for Patent Owner’s Construction of
`
`“wirelessly delivering” and, accordingly, “wireless device means.” For example, the
`
`Abstract states that “[t]he files may be selected from and downloaded to the electronic
`
`device with or without the use of a worldwide network connection.” Ex. 1001,
`
`Abstract. The remainder of the specification is also clear that the “wireless device
`
`means” functions by requesting, wirelessly receiving, and processing the compressed
`
`audio and/or visual files. Ex. 1001 at 2:49-58 (“An accessory attachment to standard
`
`telephones can however be incorporated to implement the delivery, storage, and
`
`playback capabilities of the present invention to existing landline and cellular
`
`telephones which have not been encoded at the time of manufacture, if
`
`necessary.”)(emphasis added); 12:47-50 (“the purpose of the chip 104 is to store a
`
`selection of clips, allow for downloading of clips to be stored on the chip 104, and
`
`allow for playback of clips, either by the telephone or the chip 104.”)(emphasis
`
`added); 32:51-54 (“It is a further object of the present invention to provide an
`
`accessory attachment for cellular telephones and for landline telephones which will
`
`enable the telephone to access and utilize sound files, including
`
`clips.”)(emphasis added). See also, Ex. 2021 at ¶ 31.
`
`The file history, as part of the intrinsic evidence, also supports Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed function for “wireless device means.” In response to the rejection based on
`
`Rolf, Patent Owner stated that “Rolf in particular does not teach or disclose how to
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1070
`Page 17
`
`

`

`produce a wireless cellular device that could receive, wirelessly, digitally
`
`compressed rich media, as selected and on demand, for storage on the wireless
`
`cellular device for playback as desired.” Ex. 1006 at 3 (emphasis added). Patent
`
`Owner then distinguished the claimed invention from the prior art because “[w]ithout
`
`any wireless cellular device extent, or teaching anywhere of how to produce one,
`
`applying the teachings of Breen to Rolf could not possibly yield predictable results of
`
`the delivery, wirelessly, of compressed, digital content to such a device.” Id. at 4
`
`(emphasis added). Patent Owner distinguished the Greenman reference by describing
`
`the “wireless device means’” function as receiving “compressed master recordings,
`
`rich media, human voice, graphics, animations and other visuals sent over the
`
`air wirelessly to a cell phone or other electronic device, or otherwise compression
`
`of rich media data of any kind, as this technology which is described in Applicants’
`
`specification and claims was simply not available at the time of the Greenman article.”
`
`Ex. 2002 at 11 (emphasis added). Similarly, Patent Owner explained that the prior art
`
`taught away from its claimed invention “of transmitting master recordings and
`
`other rich media, such as described above, over the air.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`Likewise, Dr. Freidson’s declaration, submitted during examination, describes a
`
`“wireless device means” that receives “compressed data wirelessly on demand from a
`
`server and play[s] back the received content . . . .” Ex. 1036 at ¶ 12. Thus, throughout
`
`the examination process, Patent Owner repeatedly and consistently made clear that
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1070
`Page 18
`
`

`

`the function of the “wireless device means” is “wirelessly deliver,” which should be
`
`construed as requesting, wirelessly receiving, and processing a compressed audio
`
`and/or visual file.
`
`The intrinsic record, including the specification and file history describes in
`
`extensive detail the structure of the “wireless device means,” linked to and performing
`
`the function, as “a device capable of receiving data over a cellular communications
`
`network and having multiple processors wherein one or more processors is primarily
`
`dedicated to processing the compressed audio and/or visual data and is operatively
`
`connected to non-volatile and volatile memory, bootstrap, analog interface, and a
`
`digital interface or equivalents thereof.” See also, Ex. 2021 at ¶ 33.
`
`First, the specification states that the base component for the “wireless device
`
`means” is a cellular phone 202. The specification describes the cellular phone 202 as
`
`“any commercially available cellular phone having capabilities for supporting a
`
`command set for general telephone control.” Ex. 1001 at 14:27-29. This
`
`“commercially available cellular phone” was compatible with various
`
`telecommunications standards for processing data and making phone calls. Id. One
`
`of skill in the art would understand that the “commercially available cellular phone”
`
`described in the ’875 patent would already include a processor to perform the various
`
`fu