IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC. and INSTAGRAM LLC,
`PETITIONERS
`
`V.
`
`SKKY, LLC,
`PATENT OWNER
`_____________________
`
`CASE IPR2017-00550
`PATENT 9,037,502
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`I.
`Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
`Inter Partes Review Violates Patent Owner’s Constitutional Rights ............... 2
`II.
`III. Factual Background of the ’502 Patent ............................................................. 8
`IV. Claim Construction ..........................................................................................12
`A.
`“Processing” ............................................................................................ 12
`V. The Petition for Inter Partes Review Should be Denied .................................14
`A. The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Precedent Precludes the
`Use of Hindsight in an Obviousness Analysis. ....................................... 15
`B. The Prior Art ............................................................................................ 18
`1. Rolf ..................................................................................................18
`2. Fritsch ..............................................................................................19
`3. Yukie ...............................................................................................21
`4. Gatherer ...........................................................................................22
`5. Frodigh ............................................................................................22
`6. O’Hara and Tagg .............................................................................23
`C. Claims 1-3 and 7 are not Obvious over Rolf in View of Gatherer,
`Fritsch, and Frodigh................................................................................. 25
`1. Claim 1 ............................................................................................26
`2. Claims 2, 3, and 7 ............................................................................37
`D. Claim 5 is not Obvious over Rolf in View of Gatherer, Fritsch, and
`Frodigh..................................................................................................... 37
`E. Claims 1-3 and 7 are not Obvious over Rolf in View of Gatherer,
`Fritsch, O’Hara, and Tagg ....................................................................... 39
`1. Claim 1 ............................................................................................40
`2. Claims 2, 3, and 7 ............................................................................43
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`F. Claim 5 is not Obvious Over Rolf in View of Gatherer, Fritsch,
`O’Hara, and Tagg. ................................................................................... 43
`G. Facebook’s petition is redundant of the exact same art and argument
`already before the Examiner. ................................................................... 44
`IV. Conclusion .......................................................................................................48
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00449, Paper No. 10 (PTAB July 15, 2015) ................................. 17, 29
`Arendi S.A.R.I. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 2015-2073, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2016) ............................................. 28
`Arnstein v. Porter,
`154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946) ................................................................................. 5
`Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n,
`430 U.S. 442 (1977) .......................................................................................... 4, 5
`Blackberry Corp. v. Mobilemedia Ideas LLC,
`IPR2013-00016, Paper 32 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2014) ................................................ 7
`Bond v. United States,
`131 S.Ct. 2355 (2011) ........................................................................................... 3
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325,1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .........................................17, 27, 30, 32, 40
`Brown v. Duchesne,
`60 U.S. 183 (1857) ................................................................................................ 4
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medline Indus., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00511, Paper No. 9 (PTAB July 15, 2015) ......................................... 17
`Consol. Fruit-Jar Co. v. Wright,
`94 U.S. 92 (1876) .................................................................................................. 4
`Cuzzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ........................................................................................ 12
`Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood,
`369 U.S. 469 (1962) .............................................................................................. 6
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`Ex parte Wood & Brundage,
`22 U.S. 603 (1824) ................................................................................................ 6
`Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.
`523 U.S. 340 (1998) .............................................................................................. 6
`Garmin Int’l Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Tech. LLC,
`IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2014) ................................................. 7
`Granfinanciera v. Nordberg,
`492 U.S. 33 (1989) ................................................................................................ 5
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 7
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule
`Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 16
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...................................................................... 17, 29
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 14, 30
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 17, 26
`In re Tech. Licensing Corp.,
`423 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 6
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbot Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 15
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 32, 40
`InterDigital Communs., LLC v. ITC,
`690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 36
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007) .................................................................................. 15, 16
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`Markman v Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) .............................................................................................. 5
`Microsoft v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 12
`Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improv. Co.,
`59 U.S. 272 (1856) ................................................................................................ 3
`Nora Lighting, Inc. v. Juno Mfg., LLC,
`Case IPR2015-00601, slip op. (PTAB Aug. 12, 2015) ...................................... 44
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 15, 16
`Playboy Enters., Inc. et al. v. Skky, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01236, Paper 45 (PTAB Jan. 29, 2016) .............................................. 47
`Pozen Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.,
`696 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 33, 42
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communs. RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 12
`Prism Pharma Co., Ltd. v. Choongwae Pharma Corp.,
`Case IPR2014-00315, slip op. (PTAB July 8, 2014).......................................... 44
`Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA Inc.,
`566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 16
`Ross v. Bernhard,
`396 U.S. 531 (1970) .............................................................................................. 5
`Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.,
`649 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 34, 42
`Stern v. Marshall,
`131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011) ........................................................................................... 3
`Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd,
`492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 16
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`The Toro Company v. MTD Prods. Inc.,
`IPR2016-01352, Paper 9 (PTAB Jan. 4, 2017) ...................................... 25, 37, 39
`Vizio, Inc. v. ITC,
`605 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 27
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................14, 25, 39, 43, 45
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................. 14, 15
`35 U.S.C. § 261 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .......................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ................................................................................................... 14
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................. 44, 47
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .......................................................................................... 7, 12
`Other Authorities
`U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8 ......................................................................................... 4
`U.S. Const. art. III, §2, cl. 1 ....................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Exhibit Title
`2001
`Network Management, Principles and Practice
`2002
`Networking with Microsoft TCP/IP – Certified Administrator’s Resource
`Edition
`SMG Meeting – Paris, January 28-29, 1998
`SMG Meeting – Madrid, Spain, December 15-19, 1997
`Excerpts from the ’502 Patent File History
`Declaration of Dr. Robert Freidson Dated May 13, 2014
`Patent Owner’s Amendment Dated May 13, 2014
`Patent Owner’s Amendment and Response Filed August 5, 2008
`
`2003
`2004
`2005
`2006
`2007
`2008
`
`vii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`Skky, LLC (“Patent Owner”) respectfully submits this Patent Owner
`
`Response to Facebook, Inc. and Instagram LLC’s (“Petitioners”) Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of claims 1-3, 5, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502 (“the’502
`
`patent”).
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Inter partes review proceedings unconstitutionally remove adjudication of
`
`private patent rights from Article III courts in violation of the separation of powers
`
`and the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Federal law is clear
`
`that the “patents shall have the attributes of personal property.” 35 U.S.C. § 261.
`
`Patents have always been, and continue to be, private property rights. Accordingly,
`
`an action relating to a patentee’s rights in her patent must be tried to a jury. This
`
`understanding is reinforced by the common law treatment of patent rights, which
`
`has established that patent rights must be adjudicated in an Article III court before
`
`a jury. By establishing inter partes review proceedings, Congress improperly
`
`created an unconstitutional venue for adjudicating patent rights outside of Article
`
`III courts and without a jury as guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment. Therefore,
`
`inter partes review is unconstitutional, and the Board should vacate its institution
`
`decision.
`
`Even if inter partes review is constitutional, Patent Owner respectfully
`
`disagrees with the Board’s analysis in its institution decision. The petition suffers
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`key defects and fails to demonstrate that the claims of the ’502 patent are invalid.
`
`The petition is based upon conclusory statements that the various elements of the
`
`challenged claims are present in the prior art, without demonstrating that one of
`
`ordinary skill would understand the prior art to teach each element or be motivated
`
`to combine the disparate prior art. Indeed, Petitioners’ arguments run contrary to
`
`the conclusions of the relevant standard setting organization at the time of
`
`invention. What’s more, Petitioners commit a fundamental sin of obviousness
`
`analysis, premising their arguments on improper hindsight. At the time of
`
`invention, the challenged claims disclosed a novel way of wirelessly delivering
`
`compressed media files to cellular devices, until that time unknown to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. For this reason, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board deny the petition, finding that Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the
`
`challenged claims are obvious in light of the prior art.
`
`II. Inter Partes Review Violates Patent Owner’s Constitutional Rights
`On June 12, 2017, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Oil
`
`States vs. Greene’s Energy Group, et al. Dkt. 16-712 (U.S. June 12, 2017). By
`
`taking this case, the Supreme Court will address the constitutionality of having an
`
`Article I tribunal extinguish patent rights. Specifically, the Supreme Court will
`
`decide “[w]hether inter partes review – an adversarial process used by the Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (PTO) to analyze the validity of existing patents – violates
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III
`
`forum without a jury.” Id.
`
`Removing adjudication of Patent Owner’s private patent right from an Article
`
`III court violates the separation of powers. Article III of the Constitution directs
`
`that “[t]he judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under
`
`this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall
`
`be made, under their authority.” U.S. Const. art. III, §2, cl. 1. The separation of
`
`power between the judiciary, executive, and legislative branches serves “to protect
`
`each branch of government from incursion by the others” and to “protect the
`
`individual as well.” Bond v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2355, 2365 (2011). “Article
`
`III could neither serve its purpose in the system of checks and balances nor
`
`preserve the integrity of judicial decision-making if the other branches of the
`
`Federal Government could confer the Government’s ‘judicial Power’ on entities
`
`outside Article III.” Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 2609 (2011). Only a limited
`
`set of rights—those properly within the public rights exception—may be
`
`adjudicated outside of an Article III court in accordance with the separation of
`
`powers established by the Constitution. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improv. Co.,
`
`59 U.S. 272, 284 (1856) (“[T]here are matters, involving public rights . . .which
`
`congress may or may not bring within the cognizance of the courts of the United
`
`States . . . .”).
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`Patent rights are private rights. The Constitution gives Congress the power
`
`“[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
`
`Congress, however, was not granted the power to do so in any manner. Instead, the
`
`Constitution explicitly established the means to do so—“by securing for limited
`
`Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
`
`and Discoveries.” Id. This constitutional creation of a private right can “scarcely be
`
`questioned” as the rights to inventions “belong to the inventors.” The Federalist
`
`No. 43, at 214 (James Madison) (L. Goldman ed. 2008). Thus, a patent is an
`
`exclusive private property right derived from the Constitution. As a property right
`
`rooted in the Constitution, patent rights are private rights that do not fall within the
`
`public rights exception, and must be adjudicated in an Article III court. Atlas
`
`Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 430 U.S. 442,
`
`458 (1977). Controlling Supreme Court precedent has repeatedly recognized the
`
`constitutional foundation and private nature of patent rights. See e.g., Brown v.
`
`Duchesne, 60 U.S. 183, 197 (1857) (“For, by the laws of the United States, the
`
`rights of a party under a patent are his private property; and by the Constitution of
`
`the United States, private property cannot be taken for public use without just
`
`compensation.”); Consol. Fruit-Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U.S. 92, 96 (1876) (“[A]
`
`patent for an invention is as much property as a patent for land. The right rests on
`
`the same foundation, and is surrounded and protected by the same sanctions.”).
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`The Seventh Amendment guarantees Patent Owner the right to litigate its
`
`private patents right before a jury. Congress may devise novel causes of action
`
`involving public rights free from the strictures of the Seventh Amendment if it
`
`assigns their adjudication to tribunals without statutory authority to employ juries
`
`as factfinders. But it lacks the power to strip parties contesting matters of private
`
`right of their constitutional right to a trial by jury. As the Court recognized in Atlas
`
`Roofing, to hold otherwise would be to permit Congress to eviscerate the Seventh
`
`Amendment’s guarantee by assigning to administrative agencies or courts of equity
`
`all causes of action not grounded in state law, whether they originate in a newly
`
`fashioned regulatory scheme or possess a long line of common-law forebears. 430
`
`U.S., at 457-458. The Constitution nowhere grants Congress such puissant
`
`authority. “[L]egal claims are not magically converted into equitable issues by
`
`their presentation to a court of equity,” Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531, 538
`
`(1970), nor can Congress “conjure away the Seventh Amendment by mandating
`
`that traditional legal claims be brought there or taken to an administrative
`
`tribunal.” Granfinanciera v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 42 n.4 (1989).
`
`The Seventh Amendment has consistently afforded owners of statutorily
`
`created intellectual property the right to a trial before a jury. See Markman, 517
`
`U.S. 370, 377 (1996); Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464, 468 (2d Cir. 1946) (“That
`
`it is founded solely on a statute does not deprive either party of a right to a trial by
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`jury . . . .”); see, e.g., Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. 523 U.S. 340,
`
`355 (1998); Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 477, 479-80 (1962). Patents,
`
`trademarks, and copyrights are all subject to preissuance examination, but the
`
`associated administrative and regulatory schemes do not permit Congress to deny
`
`intellectual property owners the right to assert and defend their private property
`
`rights before juries. By creating alternative administrative avenues for litigation of
`
`private patent rights without a jury, Congress has eviscerated the Seventh
`
`Amendment’s guarantees of a jury trial.
`
`Issues of patent validity have historically been decided exclusively before a
`
`jury. See Ex parte Wood & Brundage, 22 U.S. 603, 615 (1824) (ordering a jury
`
`trial on the issue of whether a patent should be repealed). It is true that the Federal
`
`Circuit has held that where a patent owner seeks only equitable relief for violation
`
`of its patent rights, it is not entitled to a jury trial. See In re Tech. Licensing Corp.,
`
`423 F.3d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[S]eeking only equitable relief on its claim
`
`of infringement, confers no jury trial right on TLC.”). However, Patent Owner has
`
`at no point consented to the adjudication of its patent rights separate from a jury
`
`trial by pursuing only equitable relief, and Patent Owner has never consented to
`
`inter partes review proceedings.
`
`There are stark differences between inter partes review and litigation before a
`
`jury in an Article III court. Unlike in an Article III court, there is no presumption
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`of validity in inter partes review. Blackberry Corp. v. Mobilemedia Ideas LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00016, Paper 32, at 20 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2014) (“There is no presumption
`
`of validity as to the challenged claims or substitute claims in an inter partes
`
`review.”). A party challenging a patent in court can only overcome the
`
`presumption of patent validity by presenting clear and convincing evidence of
`
`invalidity. A lower standard applies in inter partes review, and the Petitioner need
`
`only prove invalidity by a preponderance of evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316. In addition,
`
`the standard for claim construction is more liberal in inter partes review
`
`proceedings as compared to district court litigation. The Board construes claims
`
`based on the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it
`
`would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., 793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Correct claim
`
`constructions are necessary for accurate determinations of patent validity. The
`
`Board itself recognizes “in inter partes review, discovery is limited as compared to
`
`that available in district court litigations. Limited discovery lowers the cost,
`
`minimizes the complexity, and shortens the period required for dispute resolution.”
`
`Garmin Int’l Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Tech. LLC, IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 at 4-7
`
`(PTAB Mar. 5, 2014). However, limited discovery stymies a patent owner’s ability
`
`to fully investigate and present evidence in defense of its private patent rights. In
`
`conclusion, this Board should vacate the institution decision because Patent
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`Owner’s right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment has been eviscerated by
`
`Congress’s establishment of inter partes review as a quick and cheap alternative
`
`means of litigation.
`
`III. Factual Background of the ’502 Patent
`The ’502 patent, having a priority date of June 27, 2001, generally claims an
`
`improved method for delivering digital audio and/or visual files from a server to
`
`cellular phones with a particular structure. Ex. 1001 33:2-4. The ’502 patent has
`
`only one independent claim, claim 1. Claim 1 reads:
`
`A method for wirelessly delivering one or more digital audio
`and/or visual files from one or more servers to one or more
`cell phones comprising:
`
`storing a library of compressed digital audio and/or visual files
`on one or more servers;
`
`providing to a cell phone a representation of at least a portion
`of the library of compressed digital audio and/or visual files;
`
`receiving a request from the cell phone for at least one of the
`compressed digital audio and/or visual files stored on the one
`or more servers,
`
`providing the one or more requested compressed digital audio
`and/or visual files to the cell phone and wherein the cell phone
`comprises a receiver and one or more processors including a
`digital signal processor and is configured for receiving and
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`processing files transmitted by orthogonal frequency-division
`multiplex modulation;
`
`tracking the selection of the requested compressed digital
`audio and/or visual files.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 33:2-22.
`
`As claimed, the cellular phone must contain a receiver and one or more
`
`processors including at least one digital signal processor and must be configured to
`
`receive and process files transmitted by orthogonal frequency-division multiplex
`
`modulation (also known as “OFDM”). Id. at 33:16-20. In other words, the claimed
`
`cellular phone is not just any cellular phone, but a novel, non-obvious cellular
`
`phone created by the inventors of the ’502 patent over 15 years ago.
`
`The ’502 patent was invented by two of Skky LLC’s cofounders, Mr. John
`
`Mikkelsen and Dr. Robert Freidson, and is a continuation of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,548,8751 (the “’875 patent”). Mr. Mikkelsen and Dr. Freidson worked together in
`
`
`1 The claims of the ’875 patent were found to be invalid after inter partes review
`
`proceedings. The Board’s decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. In light of
`
`the unconstitutionality of inter partes review proceedings and the United States
`
`Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Oil States, Patent Owner appealed the
`
`Federal Circuit’s determination to the United States Supreme Court. That appeal
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`the early 2000s to develop and patent a means to transmit high quality audio and/or
`
`visual files to mobile devices. The two inventors were uniquely positioned to
`
`design the invention described in the ’875 and ’502 patents.
`
`Mr. Mikkelsen’s background is in the entertainment industry. As part of his
`
`work, he created high quality sound clips that sounded like songs played on the
`
`radio. Mr. Mikkelsen then used those sound clips to replace the normal alerts,
`
`consisting of simple chimes and beeps, on his computer. As the age of cellular
`
`phones was just dawning in the late 1990s, Mr. Mikkelsen believed that cellular
`
`phone users would want to wirelessly receive and play high quality audio and/or
`
`visual files, such as his sound clips, on their cellular phones.
`
`The missing piece to Mr. Mikkelsen’s idea came from his introduction to Dr.
`
`Robert Freidson. Dr. Freidson possesses a Ph.D. in computer science and
`
`mathematics from Steklov Mathematical Institute in St. Petersburg, Russia. He is
`
`also the inventor on several patents related to telecommunications industry. Dr.
`
`Freidson is currently a mathematics professor at St. Petersburg Electrical
`
`Engineering University and serves as the chairman of the Russian National
`
`Research Center on computer science. Dr. Freidson possesses extensive experience
`
`in specialized wireless transmission and telecommunications. Dr. Freidson
`
`
`remains pending.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`provided the technical expertise relating to wireless delivery to cellular devices and
`
`the playback of high quality audio and visual files on those devices.
`
`Together, the two inventors devised the invention capable of wirelessly
`
`receiving and then playing back high quality audio and/or visual files, such as Mr.
`
`Mikkelsen’s sound clips. They did so in the early 2000s, long before smartphones
`
`existed, let alone the iPhones and Galaxies of today. Mr. Mikkelsen and Dr.
`
`Freidson then applied for the ’875 patent, encompassing their invention.
`
`The ’875 patent issued on June 16, 2009 after a lengthy prosecution process.
`
`The ’502 patent was also filed in 2009, with a priority date reaching back to June
`
`27, 2001. Documentation from the prosecution of the ’875 patent was submitted
`
`during the prosecution of the ’502 patent, including a declaration from Dr.
`
`Freidson describing his efforts in creating a prototype device encompassing the
`
`invention of the ’875 patent. Ex. 2006; Ex. 2007 at 13; Ex. 2008 at 3. The ’502
`
`patent issued on May 19, 2015. Subsequently, on September 14, 2016, Patent
`
`Owner filed a disclaimer, disclaiming claims 6 and 8-11 of the ’502 patent.
`
`Petitioners now challenge independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 5 and 7
`
`(“challenged claims”), but do not challenge dependent claim 4. Ex. 2001. On July
`
`13, 2017, the Board instituted IPR proceedings for the ’502 patent. This Patent
`
`Owner Response follows.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`IV. Claim Construction
`In inter partes review, the Board affords claim terms their “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they]
`
`appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuzzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.
`
`2131, 2143 (2016). The broadest reasonable interpretation does not simply mean
`
`the broadest interpretation. The construction of a claim term must be reasonable in
`
`light of general claim construction principles. Microsoft v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789
`
`F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015); PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical
`
`Communs. RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Above all, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation must be reasonable in light of the claims and the
`
`specification.”).
`
`A. “Processing”
`Patent Owner requests that the Board construe the claim term “processing” as
`
`“preparing a digital audio and/or visual file for storage in memory and playback.”
`
`The specification of the patent indicates that the processing referenced by the
`
`claims takes place prior to the storing and subsequent play back of the file. PPC
`
`Broadband, Inc., 815 F.3d at 755 (“[T]he broadest reasonable interpretation must
`
`be reasonable in light of the claims and the specification.”). Using a sound clip as
`
`an example, the patent teaches that after being received by the phone, the sounds
`
`“are processed by the DSP . . . 300 to the same digital data form initially stored on
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`the database 212.” Ex. 1001 18:44-47. It is then, after the processing that “[i]n this
`
`form, the sound clip data are written into the flash memory 302 of the device 204”
`
`and then can be subsequently played back. Id. 18:47-49. In other words, playback
`
`is not processing because, according to the specification, it occurs after the file is
`
`processed.
`
`The extrinsic evidence, relating to principles of data transfer over non-mobile
`
`connections, supports Patent Owner’s proposed construction. At the time of
`
`invention, it was common to transfer digital data on the Internet using TCP/IP. Ex.
`
`2002 at 16 (“Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) is a suite of
`
`protocols that enable networks to be interconnected. TCP/IP forms the basic
`
`foundation of the Internet.”). All layers of the TCP/IP stack require processing at
`
`the receiver device when data, such as a digital audio and/or visual file, is sent to it.
`
`For example, the transport layer requires a sender, sending data via OFDM or other
`
`methods, to communicate an initial packet of data comprising a synchronization
`
`flag (SYN) and the receiver to process this packet and respond with its own SYN
`
`flag and ACK packet (acknowledgement packet). Ex, 2002 at 46. After
`
`establishing a connection at the transport layer, further processing is required at the
`
`receiver to service the network access layer of the TCP/IP stack. Id. The network
`
`access layer is “responsible for framing [] packets of information for the
`
`underlying topology and merging [of] data on the wire. The Network Access layer
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,037,502
`also grabs the frames off the network.” Id. at 50. TCP header data, included in
`
`packets of data sent to receivers, must also be processed by receiving devices. The
`
`header data provides information about the destination and host computers, the
`
`protocols used, and data that enables TCP to guarantee delivery. Id. at 68.
`
`V. The Petition for Inter Partes Review Should be Denied
`To prevail during IPR proceedings, Petitioners must demonstrate be a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. 35
`
`U.S.C. § 316(e). Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 provides that a patent is invalid “if the
`
`differences between the subject matter sought to