UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SONOS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`D&M HOLDINGS US INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case: To Be Assigned
`
`Patent No. 6,473,441
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,473,441
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §311 et seq. and 37 CFR §42.1 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SONOS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`D&M HOLDINGS US INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case: To Be Assigned
`
`Patent No. 6,473,441
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,473,441
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §311 et seq. and 37 CFR §42.1 et seq.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 CFR §42.8. . . . . . . . . . . . .
`III. STANDING TO FILE PETITION
`
`UNDER 37 CFR §§42.101 – 103. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`1
`
`1
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. PETITION REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 CFR §42.104. . . . . . .
`5
`
`V. REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`UNDER 37 CFR §42.22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`11
`A. Overview of the ‘441 Patent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`11
`B.
`The MPEG-2 Standard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`15
`C.
`Identification of Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
`
`1.
`Challenge #1: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`23
`
`2.
`Challenge #2: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`24
`3.
`Challenge #3: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`24
`4.
`Challenge #4: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`25
`D. Challenge #1: Challenged Claims 1-4 Are Anticipated By
`
`Allen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`30
`
`E. Challenge #2: Challenged Claims 1-4 Are Obvious Over
`
` Vishlitzky in View of MPEG-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`39
`
`F.
`Challenge #3: Challenged Claims 1-4 Are Obvious Over
`
` Wu in View of MPEG-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`52
`
`G. Challenge #4: Challenged Claim 3 Is Obvious over Any of
` Allen, the Combination of Vishlitzky and MPEG-2, and the
` Combination of Wu and MPEG-2, in View of Zhang. . . . . .
`64
`
`
`
`V. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`65
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`DESCRIPTION
`EXHIBIT
`SONOS 1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,473,441 to Dygert (“the ‘441 Patent”)
`SONOS 1002 Sonos’s Complaint for Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc., Case
`No. 1:14-cv-01330-RGA (D. Del.)
`SONOS 1003 Sonos’s First Amended Complaint for Sonos, Inc. v. D&M
`Holdings Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01330-RGA (D. Del.)
`SONOS 1004 Sonos’s Second Amended Complaint for Sonos, Inc. v. D&M
`Holdings Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01330-RGA (D. Del.)
`SONOS 1005 D&M’s first Answer to Sonos’s Second Amended Complaint for
`Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01330-
`RGA (D. Del.)
`SONOS 1006 Selected portions of D&M’s Redacted Motion for Leave to
`Amend Their Answer to Assert Counterclaims for Sonos, Inc. v.
`D&M Holdings Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01330-RGA (D. Del.)
`(D.I. 83, dated 12/08/2015, but original unredacted version was
`filed as D.I. 81 on 11/30/2015)
`SONOS 1007 Delaware District Court’s Order granting Motion to Leave to
`Amend Answer to Sonos’s Second Amended Complaint and
`severing D&M’s Counterclaims for Sonos, Inc. v. D&M
`Holdings Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01330-RGA (D. Del.)
`SONOS 1008 Excerpt of case docket for D&M Holdings Inc. v. Sonos, Inc.,
`Case No. 1:16-cv-00141 (D. Del.) (“Underlying Litigation”)
`SONOS 1009 TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Electronics, Inc., Case Nos.
`IPR2014-00293, IPR2014-00294, IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-
`00297, and IPR2014-00298
`SONOS 1010 Dictionary Definitions from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th
`ed. 2002)
`SONOS 1011 Dictionary Definitions from Rudolf F. Graf, Modern Dictionary
`of Electronics (7th ed. 1999)
`SONOS 1012 Dictionary Definitions from Newnes Dictionary of Electronics
`(4th ed. 1999)
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SONOS 1013
`
`“Information Technology – Generic Coding of Moving Pictures
`and Associated Audio: Systems,” ISO/IEC 13818-1, April 1995
`(“MPEG-2”)
`SONOS 1014 U.S. Patent No. 5,892,535 to Allen (“Allen”)
`
`SONOS 1015 U.S. Patent No. 5,737,747 to Vishlitzky (“Vishlitzky”)
`
`SONOS 1016
`
`“A Scalable Architecture for Video on Demand Servers,” Wu et
`al., IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 42, No. 4,
`November 1996 (“Wu”)
`SONOS 1017 U.S. Patent No. 6,181,711 to Zhang (“Zhang”)
`
`SONOS 1018 Expert Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger in support of this
`Petition
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §311 et seq. and 37 CFR §42.1 et seq., Sonos, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner” or “Sonos”) hereby petitions the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB”) to institute an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of Claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,473,441 (“the ‘441 Patent”; SONOS 1001). The ‘441 Patent issued on
`
`October 29, 2002, resulting from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/226,169 (“the ‘169
`
`Application”), filed on January 7, 1999. According to USPTO records, the ‘441
`
`Patent is currently assigned to D&M Holdings US Inc. (“Patent Owner” or “D&M”).
`
`This petition for Inter Partes Review (the “Petition”) demonstrates a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to Claims 1-4 of the
`
`‘441 Patent (“the Challenged Claims”). 35 U.S.C. §314(a). Petitioner asserts that
`
`the Challenged Claims are anticipated by and/or obvious over the asserted prior art.
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §42.22, Petitioner asks that the PTAB review the asserted
`
`prior art and below analysis, institute a trial for Inter Partes Review of the
`
`Challenged Claims, and cancel those claims as unpatentable.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 CFR §42.8
`
`Real Party-In-Interest – 37 CFR §42.8(b)(1): Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§312(a)(2), the real party-in-interest is Sonos, Inc., a corporation organized under
`
`the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business at 614 Chapala
`
`Street, Santa Barbara, California 93101.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Related Matters – 37 CFR §42.8(b)(2): On October 21, 2014, Sonos filed
`
`its original Complaint—Case No. 1:14-cv-01330—against D&M in the U.S. District
`
`Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”), alleging infringement of four
`
`patents. SONOS 1002. Sonos filed First and Second Amended Complaints on
`
`December 17, 2014 and March 9, 2015, respectively, alleging infringement of
`
`twelve total patents. SONOS 1003; SONOS 1004.
`
`On April 30, 2015, D&M filed an Answer in response to Sonos’s Second
`
`Amended Complaint. SONOS 1005. On November 30, 2015, D&M moved for
`
`leave to amend its Answer and add counterclaims, alleging infringement of nine
`
`patents, including the ‘441 Patent. SONOS 1006.
`
`On March 7, 2016, the Court granted D&M’s motion for leave to amend its
`
`Answer to Sonos’s Second Amended Complaint. SONOS 1007. The Court also
`
`immediately severed D&M’s infringement counterclaims into a new case—Case No.
`
`1:16-cv-00141 (the “Underlying Litigation”)—alleging infringement by Sonos of,
`
`inter alia, the ‘441 Patent. SONOS 1008.
`
`Lead/Back-Up Counsel and Service Info – 37 CFR §42.8(b)(3)-(4):
`
`Lead Counsel
`George I. Lee
`Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP
`224 North Desplaines Street, Suite 250
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`
`
`Tel: (312) 754-9602
`Fax: (312) 754-9603
`Email: lee@ls3ip.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 39,269
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Back-up Counsel
`
`Tel: (312) 754-9602
`Sean M. Sullivan
`Fax: (312) 754-9603
`Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP
`Email: sullivan@ls3ip.com
`224 North Desplaines Street, Suite 250
`USPTO Reg. No. 40,191
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`
`
`Tel: (312) 754-9602
`Rory P. Shea
`Fax: (312) 754-9603
`Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP
`Email: shea@ls3ip.com
`224 North Desplaines Street, Suite 250
`USPTO Reg. No. 66,529
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`
`
`Tel: (312) 754-9602
`John Dan Smith III
`Fax: (312) 754-9603
`Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP
`Email: smith@ls3ip.com
`224 North Desplaines Street, Suite 250
`USPTO Reg. No. 66,743
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`
`
`III. STANDING TO FILE PETITION UNDER 37 CFR §§42.101 – 103
`
`Standing – 37 CFR §42.101: Sonos has not filed a civil action challenging
`
`the validity of a claim of the ‘441 Patent. See 37 C.F.R. §42.101(a). Further, this
`
`Petition has been filed within one year after Sonos was served with a jurisdictionally-
`
`proper complaint alleging infringement of the ‘441 Patent on March 7, 2016, i.e., the
`
`Underlying Litigation. See 35 U.S.C. §315(b); 37 C.F.R. §42.101(b); SONOS 1007;
`
`SONOS 1008. Petitioner is also not estopped from challenging the ‘441 Patent’s
`
`claims on the grounds identified in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. §42.101(c). Thus,
`
`the filing of this Petition is proper under 37 CFR §42.101.
`
`To the extent that Patent Owner attempts to argue that this Petition is time-
`
`barred under 35 U.S.C. §315(b) and 37 CFR §42.101(b) because Patent Owner filed
`
`a Motion for Leave to Amend Their Answer to Assert Counterclaims, including a
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`counterclaim for infringement of the ‘441 Patent, on November 30, 2015 in Case
`
`No. 1:14-cv-01330 (SONOS 1006), this argument has already been rejected by the
`
`PTAB. Indeed, in TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Elecs., Inc., Case No.
`
`IPR2014-00293, the PTAB addressed “whether the ‘Second Amended Complaint’
`
`attached as an exhibit to Patent Owner’s Motion for Leave, filed and served on
`
`December 20, 2012, constituted service of a ‘complaint,’ thereby triggering the one-
`
`year time bar under §315(b).” SONOS 1009, p. 5-7. The PTAB determined that the
`
`one-year time bar was not triggered with the filing/service of Patent Owner’s Motion
`
`for Leave on December 20, 2012. SONOS 1009, p. 10-11; Amneal Pharm., LLC v
`
`Endo Pharm. Inc., Case No. IPR2014-00360, Paper 15, p. 7-10 (same).
`
`The procedural history analyzed in the above TRW and Amneal decisions is
`
`essentially the same as the procedural history for the Underlying Litigation. Thus,
`
`for the same reasons as expressed in these decisions, Patent Owner’s November 30,
`
`2015 Motion for Leave to Amend Their Answer to Assert Counterclaims did not
`
`trigger the one-year time bar under §315(b).
`
`Timing – 37 CFR §42.102: The ‘441 Patent was filed before March 16, 2013
`
`and was granted on October 29, 2002, and a post-grant review for this patent has not
`
`been initiated. Accordingly, the timing for this Petition is proper under 37 CFR
`
`§42.102(a).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Fees – 37 CFR §42.103: With the filing of this Petition, Sonos is paying both
`
`the $9,000 request fee set forth in 37 CFR §42.15(a)(1), as well as the $14,000 post-
`
`institution fee set forth in 37 CFR §42.15(a)(2). However, Petitioner authorizes a
`
`debit from Deposit Account No. 50-6632 for whatever additional payment is
`
`necessary in filing and/or granting this Petition.
`
`IV. PETITION REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 CFR §42.104
`
`Certification – 37 CFR §42.104(a): Petitioner certifies that the ‘441 Patent
`
`is available for Inter Partes Review and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting an Inter Partes Review of the Challenged Claims on the grounds
`
`identified in the Petition.
`
`Claims Challenged – 37 CFR §42.104(b)(1): Petitioner requests review of
`
`Claims 1-4 of the ‘441 Patent.
`
`Specific Statutory Grounds – 37 CFR §42.104(b)(2): For the reasons set
`
`forth in detail below, Petitioner submits that the Challenged Claims of the ‘441
`
`Patent are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 and/or obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103
`
`in view of the asserted prior art.
`
`Claim Construction – 37 CFR §42.104(b)(3): For purposes of an Inter
`
`Partes Review, a claim should be given its broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`of the specification of the patent in which it appears. See 37 CFR 42.100(b).
`
`Furthermore, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`meaning.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`In addition, in the Underlying Litigation, Patent Owner has construed the
`
`Challenged Claims of the ‘441 Patent broadly to cover Petitioner’s audio system.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner submits that the terms of the Challenged Claims of
`
`the ‘441 Patent are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation as understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art and consistent with the specification of the ‘441
`
`Patent and Patent Owner’s broad interpretation of the Challenged Claims in the
`
`Underlying Litigation.
`
`The following terms, however, warrant additional discussion as to the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation:
`
`“an apparatus for simultaneously reproducing multiple recordings from
`
`storage devices for transport on a network, comprising”: a preamble generally does
`
`not limit the claims, unless it recites essential structure or steps, or is necessary to
`
`give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. American Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec,
`
`Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Under the broadest reasonable
`
`construction standard, the preamble here does not recite any essential structure or
`
`steps, and is not necessary to give life, meaning, or vitality to the Challenged
`
`Claims. Accordingly, the preamble of the Challenged Claims should not be treated
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`as a limitation that needs to be found in the prior art for purposes of unpatentability.1
`
`“buffers”: “buffers” are a set of storage elements (or regions within a single
`
`memory) that serve as intermediate repositories for data. See, e.g., SONOS 1010, p.
`
`3 (defining “buffer” as “[a] region of memory reserved for use as an intermediate
`
`repository in which data is temporarily held while waiting to be transferred between
`
`two locations or devices.”); SONOS 1011, p. 3-4 (defining “buffer” as
`
`“[a] storage area in a computer for data that is used to compensate for a speed
`
`difference when transferring data from one device to another.”). This construction
`
`is consistent with the ordinary meaning of “buffers” disclosed in the ‘441
`
`Patent. See, e.g., SONOS 1001, 5:48-49 (“DRAM buffers 38 may be provided by a
`
`conventional DRAM chip of, e.g., 64 megabytes.”).
`
`“a control unit”: a component, such as a controller or processor, that performs
`
`an arbitrating or regulating function. See, e.g., SONOS 1010, p. 4 (“A device or
`
`circuit that performs an arbitrating or regulating function.”); SONOS 1011, p. 5
`
`(“That section of an automatic digital computer that directs the sequence of
`
`operations, interprets coded instructions, and sends the proper signals to the other
`
`computer circuits to carry out the instructions.”). This construction is consistent
`
`
`1 That being said, Sonos has provided support in this Petition for the disclosure of
`
`this preamble in the prior art.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`with the ordinary meaning of “control unit,” referred to as “control & status logic”
`
`and a “processor,” disclosed in the ‘441 Patent. See, e.g., SONOS 1001, 5:23-28
`
`(“Control & status logic 32 provides the interface to the ‘outside world,’ receiving
`
`commands and passing status to other elements within digital media retrieval system
`
`10. Control & status logic 32 processes these system level commands, generating
`
`local commands as required to the other functional elements of video pump 12.”);
`
`id. at 5:53-55 (“Processor 42 controls the operation of video pump 12 . . . .”).
`
`“coupled to”: the ordinary meaning and broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“coupled to” encompasses both direct and indirect connection. See, e.g., Bradford
`
`Co. v. Conteyor N. Am., Inc., 603 F.3d 1262, 1270-71 (Fed.Cir.2010) (construing
`
`“coupled to” to allow for both direct and indirect attachments); Oceaneering Int'l,
`
`Inc. v. Trendsetter Eng'g, Inc., No. CV H-16-2797, 2016 WL 7388390, at *7 (S.D.
`
`Tex. Dec. 20, 2016) (holding that “‘coupled to’ should be given its ordinary
`
`meaning, which would include both direct and indirect connection.”). Moreover,
`
`the ‘441 Patent does not require any direct coupling.
`
` “a real-time pump … to detect the one of the bit rates used to encode the
`
`stored signals on each of the multiple recordings and to output transport stream
`
`packets”: a component that detects the encoded bit rates of the stored signals and
`
`outputs transport stream packets. See, e.g., SONOS 1001, 1:10-2:15, 2:47-53, 2:61-
`
`3:11, 3:36-5:2, 5:19-20, 5:29-52, 6:6-56, 8:56-67.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`“output over the network multiplexed packet isochronous signals”:
`
`transmitting over the network a plurality of separate signals as a single combined
`
`signal, the separate signals each having a respective constant bit rate. See, e.g.,
`
`SONOS 1001, 1:10-2:15 (“. . . a constant bit rate (or isochronous) . . . constant bit
`
`rate delivery is generally termed Isochronous Streaming . . .”), 2:47-53, 2:61-4:26,
`
`4:40-46, 4:51-5:18, 5:42-52, 5:66-8:55, and 9:1-3; see also SONOS 1012, p. 3
`
`(defining “multiplexing” to mean “simultaneous transmission of two or more signals
`
`along a common path”); SONOS 1011, p. 5 (“A technique used in communications
`
`and input/output operations for transmitting a number of separate signals
`
`simultaneously over a single channel or line.”).
`
`“each stream of the packet isochronous signals on the network having an
`
`average bit rate of the one of the bit rates used to encode the stored signals
`
`corresponding thereto”: the average bit rate of each (packet isochronous) signal
`
`stream on the network being equal to the corresponding stored stream’s encoded bit
`
`rate. See, e.g., SONOS 1001, 1:18-22 (“When video that has been compressed using
`
`one of the standards of the Moving Pictures Expert Group (MPEG) and stored . . . a
`
`constant bit rate (or isochronous) stream is created.”); 1:34-38 (“The MPEG
`
`compression standards are used worldwide for constant bit rate digital video
`
`encoding. . . . This constant bit rate delivery is generally termed Isochronous
`
`Streaming.”).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`“a channel timing module, coupled to said real-time pump, to control timing
`
`of output of the transport stream packets”: a module that generates the timing
`
`information required for outputting transport stream packets from the video pump.
`
`See, e.g., SONOS 1001, 5:66-6:1 (“Channel timing module 40 generates the timing
`
`required for maintaining data rates for each channel output from video pump 12.”).
`
`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, no specific structure/architecture
`
`for the “channel timing module” is required by any of the Challenged Claims.2
`
`While Sonos provides these constructions of the Challenged Claims of the
`
`‘441 Patent as the “broadest reasonable construction,” Sonos reserves the right to
`
`advocate a different claim interpretation in the Underlying Litigation or any other
`
`forum in accordance with the claim construction standards applied in such a forum.
`
`Unpatentability – 37 CFR §42.104(b)(4)-(5): For the reasons set forth in
`
`detail below, there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect
`
`to each of the Challenged Claims based on anticipation under 35 U.S.C. §102 and/or
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of the asserted prior art, alone or in
`
`combination. A complete copy of every patent and printed publication relied upon
`
`
`2 Any remaining claim terms not mentioned above should be “given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`in this Petition is attached hereto. SONOS 1013-1017.
`
`V. REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF UNDER 37 CFR §42.22
`
`In light of the asserted prior art and the below analysis, Petitioner asks that the
`
`PTAB institute a trial for Inter Partes Review of the Challenged Claims and cancel
`
`those claims as unpatentable.
`
`A. Overview of the ‘441 Patent
`The ‘441 Patent is entitled “Multi-Channel Video Pump.” The ‘441 Patent
`
`was filed as U.S. Patent Application No. 09/226,169 on January 7, 1999, and issued
`
`on October 29, 2002. SONOS 1001. The ‘441 Patent claims the benefit
`
`of Provisional Application No. 60/112,866, filed on December 18, 1998, and has a
`
`total of 4 claims, only the first of which is independent. Id.
`
`The ‘441 Patent is directed to video servers with components for retrieving
`
`encoded (digitally compressed) video data from storage devices and outputting that
`
`data to a high-speed delivery network for transport to receivers (e.g., a set top box).
`
`Id. at Abstract, 1:11-15, 2:47-3:11.
`
`More specifically, Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (i.e., video pump) that
`
`simultaneously streams multiple recordings transmitted from storages devices over
`
`a network. See, e.g., id. at 2:64-3:2 (“[The] purpose [of the apparatus] is to retrieve
`
`MPEG audio/video streams from various storage devices . . . and place this data into
`
`the high-speed digital network 18 for distribution to set top devices 20 at the specific
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`rate required for each stream.”). Claim 1 recites:
`
`
`
`A functional block diagram of the video pump is shown in Figure 2:
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown above, the apparatus has “four main functional components: RAID
`
`streaming logic 30, video pump control and status 32, real-time pump 34, and ATM
`
`adapter 36.” Id. at 4:28-30. As described in the specification, the “video pump
`
`control and status 32” processes “system level commands, [and] generate[s] local
`
`commands as required to the other functional elements of video pump 12.” Id. at
`
`5:26-28. The “RAID streaming logic 30” receives “start and stop commands, as
`
`well data addresses from video pump control and status 32.” Id. at 4:38-40. Further,
`
`the “RAID streaming logic 30 fetches data from RAID array 14.” Id. at 4:36-38.
`
`The “data” is then “placed in a DRAM buffer 38 where it is read by real-time pump
`
`34,” and passed to “buffers in ATM adapter module 36.” Id. at 4:37-38, 4:54-56.
`
`The “ATM adapter module 36” then “packetizes this data into ATM packets, and
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`passes this data stream on to [the network] for distribution to set top devices 20.” Id.
`
`at 4:62-65. As defined by the specification, the stored data is “isochronous data
`
`[which] includ[es] both audio and video,” and is generally referred to as either
`
`“video” or “data” throughout the specification for “simplicity’s sake.” Id. at 3:9-11.
`
`The ‘441 Patent also discloses that “[t]he encode rate is the rate at which the
`
`set top device decoder will use the data, and it is therefore the rate at which video
`
`pump 12 must send the data to the decoder.” Id. at 4:43-46. As recited in Claim 1,
`
`the ‘441 Patent ensures that the encode and decode rates are the same by requiring
`
`that each video stream “output over the network” has an “average bit rate” that is
`
`“isochronous [constant]” and the same as “the bit rate[] used to encode the stored
`
`signals corresponding thereto.”
`
`Claim 2 is directed to the video pump, wherein the “networking interface
`
`outputs each stream of the packet isochronous signals with the average bit rate within
`
`one bit per second of the one of the bit rates used to encode the stored signals
`
`corresponding thereto.”
`
`Claim 3 is directed to the video pump, wherein the “network interface outputs
`
`each stream of the packet isochronous signals with a jitter of less than two
`
`milliseconds.” The video pump can “operate on blocks of data as small as 2 MPEG
`
`Transport Packets (376 bytes) to minimize jitter imposed by the distribution of video
`
`within the system and to comply with ATM Forum requirements for MPEG2
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`transmission.” Id. at 4:22-26.
`
`Claim 4 requires “a channel timing module . . . to control timing of output of
`
`the transport stream packets.” According the ‘441 Patent, the “[c]hannel timing
`
`module 40 generates the timing required for maintaining data rates for each channel
`
`output from the video pump 12.” Id. at 5:66-6:1. The channel timing module
`
`includes “primary and secondary counters 60, 62, and status logic 64 [which] are
`
`replicated for each of the 80 channels supported by [the] video pump.” Id. at 6:6-9.
`
`Conceptually, the “primary and secondary counters 60, 62 [are] timers [that]
`
`generate a timing mark for [the] video pump.” Id. at 6:14-16. Based on the timing
`
`mark, the video pump “determine[s] when to ‘pump’ [] data by reading it from the
`
`DRAM buffer and passing it to ATM adapter module 36.” Id. at 6:23-25. Notably,
`
`however, Claim 4 does not require any of this structure/architecture, or any other
`
`structure/architecture, for the channel timing module. SONOS 1018, ¶61.
`
`From the prior art discussed herein, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`appreciate that the video pump recited in Claims 1-4 was well known in the prior art
`
`before the earliest possible effective filing date of the ‘441 Patent. Id.
`
`B.
`
`The MPEG-2 Standard
`
`The “Information Technology – Generic Coding of Moving Pictures and
`
`Associated Audio: Systems,” ISO/IEC 13818-1, April 1995 (“MPEG-2”; SONOS
`
`1013), was well known prior to the filing of the ‘441 Patent. SONOS 1018, ¶63.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`MPEG-2 is used to encode “one or more elementary streams of video and audio, as
`
`well as other data, into single or multiple streams which are suitable for storage or
`
`transmission.” SONOS 1013, p. x. As explained below, MPEG-2 teaches the
`
`claimed aspects of the ‘441 Patent claims. SONOS 1018, ¶¶63-88.
`
`In MPEG-2, a program (e.g., TV show, movie, etc.) is represented by a
`
`“Program Stream” (“PS”), which is typically comprised of compressed video and
`
`audio bit streams called “elementary streams.” SONOS 1013, p. x-xiv, 5, 97;
`
`SONOS 1018 ¶65. MPEG-2 systems usually transmit a plurality of PSs, by
`
`multiplexing the PSs into a “Transport Stream” (“TS”), referred to as a multi-
`
`program multiplex. Id; see also SONOS 1013, p. xvi (“Synchronization among
`
`multiple elementary streams is accomplished with Presentation Time Stamps (PTS)
`
`in the Program Stream and Transport streams.”). The respective PSs can be
`
`transmitted independent of each other having independent timing and time
`
`references with different encoded bit rates as well. Id. at p. xi, 113. As such, the
`
`recipient of an MPEG-2 TS will receive the entire plurality of PSs, and the so-called
`
`“System Target Decoder” will parse the TS to identify and capture the components
`
`of the desired selected PS. Id. at p. 106.
`
`MPEG-2 provides all the timing ingredients necessary for the System Target
`
`Decoder to process the selected program:
`
`In the Program Stream, the clock reference field is called the System
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Clock Reference or SCR. In the Transport Stream, the clock reference
`field is called the Program Clock Reference or PCR. In general, the
`SCR and PCR definitions may be considered to be equivalent, although
`there are distinctions. . . . The PCR in Transport Streams provides the
`clock reference for one program, where a program is a set of elementary
`streams that have a common time base and are intended for
`synchronized decoding and presentation. There may be multiple
`programs in one Transport Stream, and each may have an
`independent time base and a separate set of PCRs.
`
`Id. at p. 107 (emphasis added). Thus, MPEG-2 teaches the output of “transport
`
`streams” that are “multiplexed,” with each stream having its own “encod[ing] at one
`
`of a plurality of bit rates,” as recited in Claim 1 of the ‘441 Patent. SONOS 1018,
`
`¶66.
`
`Annex D of MPEG-2 addresses the end-to-end MPEG-2 timing model.
`
`MPEG-2 teaches “constant end to end delay” with average bit rates that are “the
`
`same at the decoder as they are at the encoder”:
`
`ISO/IEC 13818-1 Systems embodies a timing model in which all
`digitized pictures and audio samples that enter the encoder are
`presented exactly once each, after a constant end to end delay, at the
`output of the decoder. As such, the sample rates, i.e. the video frame
`rate and the audio sample rate, are precisely the same at the decoder
`as they are at the encoder. This timing model is diagrammed in the
`following figure:
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Video In
`
`Encoder
`
`Buffer
`
`Audio In
`
`Encoder
`
`Buffer
`
`System
`Coder
`and
`Multi-
`plex
`
`Storage
`or
`Trans-
`mission
`
`System
`decoder
`and
`de-
`multi-
`plex
`
`Buffer
`
`Decoder
`
`Buffer
`
`Decoder
`
`Variable
`Delay
`
`Constant delay
`
`Constant delay
`
`Variable
`Delay
`
`Figure D-1 – Constant delay model
`
`Video
`Out
`
`Audio
`Out
`
`
`
`
`As indicated in the figure, the delay from the input to the encoder to the
`output or presentation from the decoder is constant in this model . . . .
`
`SONOS 1013, p. 104 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). These references to
`
`sample and frame “rates” means information (e.g., digitized and compressed audio
`
`and video) production and consumption rates—i.e., data rates. SONOS 1018, ¶68.
`
`As explained above, MPEG-2 states that such rates are “precisely” the same at each
`
`end. Id.
`
`To realize the constant delay and synchronize the presentation of video and
`
`audio, MPEG-2 provides several time references and stamps:
`
`There is a single, common system clock in the encoder, and this clock
`is used to create time stamps that indicate the correct presentation and
`decoding timing of audio and video, as well as to create time stamps
`that indicate the instantaneous values of the system clock itself at
`sampled intervals. . . . It is the presence of this common system clock
`in the encoder, the time stamps that are created from it, and the
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`recreation of the clock in the decoder and the correct use of the time
`stamps that provide the facility to synchronize properly the operation
`of the decoder.
`
`SONOS 1013, p. 105 (emphasis added). The system clock of the encoder provides
`
`the basis for the “channel timing module . . . to control timing” of the encoder’s
`
`output of transport stream packets, as recited in Claim 4 of the ‘441 Patent. SONOS
`
`1018, ¶70.
`
`According to MPEG-2, the decoder locally recreates the encoder system
`
`clock, and then uses this equal (albeit delayed) clock along with the other time
`
`stamps and clock references to locally control the decoder’s signal processing and
`
`ultimately the presentation:
`
`Since the end-to-end delay through the entire system is constant, the
`audio and video presentations are precisely synchronized. The
`construction of System bit streams is constrained such that when they
`are decoded by a decoder that follows this model with the appropriately
`sized decoder buffers those buffers are guaranteed never to overflow
`nor underflow . . .
`
`In order for the decoder system to incur the precise amount of delay
`that causes the entire end-to-end delay to be constant, it is necessary
`for the decoder to have a system clock whose frequency of operation
`and absolute instantaneous value match those of the encoder.
`
`SONOS 1013, p. 105 (emphasis added).
`
`Using the timing references and the locally recreated system clock described
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`in MPEG-2, a decoder can precisely perform the decoding and presentation
`
`processes:
`
`If the decoder’s clock frequency matches exactly that of the encoder,
`then the decoding and presentation of video and audio will
`automatically have the same rate as those at the encoder, and the end
`to end delay will be constant. With matched encoder and decoder clock
`frequencies, any correct SCR value can be used to set the instantaneous
`value of the decoder’s STC, and from that time on the decoder’s STC
`will match that of the encoder without the need for further
`adjustment. This condition remains true until there is a discontinuity
`of timing, such as the end of a Program Stream or the presence of a
`discontinuity indicator in a Transport Stream.
`
`Id. at p. 108 (emphasis added).
`
`Accordingly, under MPEG-2, the rate of compressed video data generation by
`
`the encoder (i.e., the encoded rate) must be precisely matched by the transmission
`
`channel, on average, in order for the decoder to be able to precisely decode as
`
`required (i.e., at the same rate as the encoded rate). SONOS 1018, ¶¶73-75. More
`
`specifically, the transmission channel, which provides the bridge between the
`
`encoder and decoder, implements a transfer bit rate. Id. Of course, the transfer bit
`
`rate cannot be any faster, on average, than the encoded bit rate, because the encoder
`
`only produces data at the encoded rate. Id. Likewise, the transfer bit r
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
