Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`
`
`
` Entered: October 5, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`D&M HOLDINGS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Petitioner, SONOS, Inc., filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review of
`claims 1–4, 10, 11, 13–20, and 25–27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,987,294 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’294 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, D&M Holdings, Inc., filed a
`Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary
`Response, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood
`that it would prevail with respect to the challenged claims. Therefore, we do not
`institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’294 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`Patent Owner asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,788,080, 7,571,014, 8,588,949,
`and D559,197 against Petitioner in Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings, Inc., No. 1:14-
`cv-01330 (D. Ct. Del. filed October 21, 2014). Pet. 2, Ex. 1002. In addition to the
`stated patents, Patent Owner asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 7,792,311, 7,805,682,
`8,024,055, 8,843,224, 8,923,997, 8,370,678, 8,689,036, and 8,938,637 against
`Petitioner in a Second Amended Complaint filed in the above-referenced.
`Petitioner sought leave to amend its Answer to add counterclaims, alleging
`infringement of the ’294 patent in addition to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,343,435,
`6,539,210, 7,305,694, 6,469,633, 8,755,667, 6,473,441, 7,734,850, and 7,995,899.1
`
`
`1 Based on this amendment, Patent Owner argues that this Petition is time-barred
`under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Prelim. Resp. 2–6. Because we conclude that Petitioner
`has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to the
`challenged claims, we do not address this argument.
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`On March 7, 2016, Patent Owner’s motion to amend was granted and the
`counterclaims severed into a new case, No. 1:16-cv-00141. Mandatory Notice,
`Paper No. 4.
`The ’294 patent is also involved in IPR2017-01045. U.S. Patent No.
`6,473,441 was involved in IPR2017-01043, which has been terminated at the
`request of the parties.
`
`B. The ’294 Patent
`The ’294 patent is directed to wireless audio systems with wireless speaker
`subsystem units that autonomously form a single wireless audio system having its
`own control interface. Ex. 1001, Abstract. The control interface can be used to
`apply operational changes, such as volume adjustment, across the wireless audio
`system. Id.
`Figure 2 of the ’294 patent (below) shows a wireless audio system 210.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’294 patent shows a wireless audio system 210 with wireless
`speaker subsystems 201–205, connected in a network 206 by access point 207,
`which together form a group 208.
`
`
`Wireless speaker subsystems 201–205 automatically connect to wireless network
`206, which is provided by access point 207. Ex. 1001, 6:32–35. Together, these
`devices define a discoverable group 208 for wireless audio system 210. Group 208
`exists within and shares the hardware of the relative group leader, or master,
`wireless speaker subsystem 201. Id. at 6:54–57. Master subsystem 201 provides a
`system control interface 209 to receive system control signals for implementing
`operations changes across wireless audio system 210. Id. at 6:41–48. Groups of
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`devices, such as group 208, can be unified into a single, autonomous zone with its
`own control interface, and operational changes may be applied across the zone. Id.
`at 3:66–4:6.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 13, 18, 19, and 25 are independent.
`Claim 1 is illustrative:
`1.
`A method for providing a multimedia system including a
`plurality of networked multimedia devices, the method including
`the steps of:
`discovering the plurality of devices on a computer
`network;
`two groups, each group being
`least
`defining at
`representative of a networked multimedia system
`including two or more devices;
`providing, for each group, a system control interface for
`receiving, from a control device, a system control
`signal indicative of an operational change to the
`group, wherein each group has a relative group
`leader configured to:
`(i) receive the system control signal; and
`(ii) in response to the system control signal, define
`respective corresponding device control signals,
`and provide those device control signals to the
`devices thereby to implement the operational
`change across the group;
`defining at least one zone, the zone being representative of
`a networked multimedia system including two or
`more groups;
`providing, for the zone, a system control interface for
`receiving, from a control device, a zone control
`signal indicative of an operational change to the
`zone, wherein the zone has a relative zone leader
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`
`configured to:
`(i) receive the zone control signal; and
` (ii) in response to the zone control signal, define
`respective corresponding device control signals,
`and provide those device control signals to the
`devices thereby to implement the operational
`change across the zone.
`Ex. 1001, 20:41–21:5.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art reference:
`Deslippe US 2005/0289224 A1 Dec. 29, 2005
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`(Ex. 1011)
`
`Challenged Claims
`1–4, 10, 13, 14, 17–20, and 25–27
`11 and 15–17
`
`Reference
`Basis
`§ 102(a)/(e)2 Deslippe
`§ 103(a)
`Deslippe
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given their
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`
`2 Because the claims at issue have an effective filing date prior to March 16, 2013,
`the effective date of the applicable provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents
`Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), we apply the pre-AIA
`versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 in this Decision.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.
`2131, 2144–46 (2016) (adopting the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as
`a reasonable exercise of the Office’s rulemaking authority). Under the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary
`and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`In this section, we construe certain claim terms to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”) In our
`construction analysis, we have considered the parties’ proposed constructions for
`certain claim terminology. Pet. 6–7; Prelim. Resp. 14–15.
`The ’294 patent defines a “group” as “one or more wireless speaker systems
`. . . form[ing] a single wireless audio system . . . having its own control interface
`. . . to apply operational changes, . . . such as volume adjustment,” “across the
`wireless audio system.” Ex. 1001, 3:56–61. The parties proffer no interpretation
`of this term. Because the Specification is the best source for interpreting claim
`language, we adopt this definition of “group” in construing the claims in our
`Decision. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (“the
`specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually,
`it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a [] term.”)
`Patent Owner contends the term “relative group leader” or “group leader
`relative to one or more complementary devices” is a master multimedia device
`which is a member of a group, which controls slave multimedia devices within the
`group. Prelim. Resp. 33. Petitioner proffers no interpretation to define this term.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s interpretation. As shown in Figure 2 of the
`’294 patent, for example, group 208 is referenced as a virtual device representative
`of the wireless audio system 210 defined by a master wireless speaker subsystem
`201, which is labeled a “relative master” of slave multimedia devices 202–205.
`Figure 2 shows the master subsystem 201 includes a speaker, and is thus a
`multimedia device. Other references to “relative group leader” in the Specification
`are consistent with the described usage of the term. Id. at 2:14–31, 6:54–62, 8:31–
`42, claims 1, 13, 18, and 25.
`One of Petitioner’s patentability challenges to claim 1 is predicated on
`interpretation of “providing, for each group, a system control interface” as meaning
`that one system control interface can control multiple groups of multimedia
`devices. Pet. 6–7. Similarly, Petitioner’s challenge requires interpretation of claim
`1’s language of “defining at least two groups” and “each group has a group leader”
`as meaning one group leader may control multiple groups. Patent Owner interprets
`this language to require a separate system control interface and group leader for
`each of multiple groups. Prelim. Resp. 28.
`We agree with Patent Owner and interpret the claim language as requiring
`the groups to have distinct system control interfaces and group leaders. In this
`regard, we can find no mention in the ’294 patent of a device serving as system
`control interface and group leader for multiple groups. Also, under similar facts in
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298−99 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the
`Federal Circuit construed claims reciting a “gateway,” “caching computer,” and “at
`least two other computers” to be four separate elements, finding the Board’s
`construction permitting the “two other computers” to include the “caching
`computer” unreasonably broad in light of the language of the claims and
`specification. Similarly, in the case of In re Smith International, Inc., No. 2016-
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`2303, slip op. at 11−14 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 26, 2017), the Federal Circuit found the
`Board’s interpretation of the term “body” as a generic element encompassing the
`“body,” “mandrel,” and “cam sleeve” of a prior art reference to be unreasonably
`broad in light of the specification and claims.
`In view of these cases, and in the absence of any statement in the
`Specification or claims that a “system control interface” and “group leader” can be
`the same device for multiple groups, we construe the language of claim 1 to require
`distinct system control interfaces and group leaders for each of the groups recited
`in the claim.
`
`B. Anticipation by Deslippe
`Petitioner contends Deslippe anticipates claims 1–4, 10, 13, 14, 17–20, and
`25–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e). Pet. 17–50.
`1. Principles of Law
`An anticipatory reference must show all of the limitations “arranged or
`combined in the same way as in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A claim is anticipated when “the four
`corners of a single, prior art document describe every element of the claimed
`invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the
`art could practice the invention without undue experimentation.” Advanced
`Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`2. Deslippe Overview
`Deslippe discloses a multi-zone audio communication network including a
`master device and slave devices. Ex. 1011, ¶ 3. The master device receives a
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`command from a remote control or buttons on a device, and transmits the
`command to the slave devices. Id.
`In the exemplary embodiment of Figure 1A of Deslippe, the system 100
`includes master device 110 and slave device 112A in first room 120, slave devices
`112B and 112C in a second room 122, and slave devices 112D–112F in a third
`room 124. Ex. 1011, ¶ 42. Master device 110 can include a stand-alone control
`console such as a desktop, laptop, or handheld computer. Id. Slave devices 112A–
`112D can include a speaker, an electronic device with an audio playback or
`recording capability, or a device collecting and /or displaying information about an
`audio stream. Id. A user can control master device 110 and slave devices 112A–
`112F either directly using control buttons on the devices, or using remote controls
`130, 132. Id. ¶¶ 43, 44. Such control includes commands pertaining to volume,
`mute, and unmute. Id. ¶ 26. Figure 1A of Deslippe is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1A of Deslippe shows audio network control system 100 including master
`device 110 and slave devices 112A–112F controlled by remote controls 130, 132
`in a multi-room environment including Zone 1 and Zone 2.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`
`Deslippe discloses that, in some implementations, the audio network control
`system 100 may include more than one master device. Id. at ¶ 47. Also, some
`slave devices can themselves be systems and include control integration for other
`connected devices. Id. ¶ 28.
`
`3. Claim 1
`The preamble of claim 1 recites “[a] method for providing a multimedia
`system including a plurality of networked multimedia devices.” Ex. 1001.
`Claim 1 also recites, in relevant part, the following:
`defining at least two groups, each group being representative of
`a networked multimedia system including two or more
`devices;
`providing, for each group, a system control interface for
`receiving, from a control device, a system control signal
`indicative of an operational change to the group, wherein
`each group has a relative group leader configured to:
`(i) receive the system control signal; and
`(ii) in response to the system control signal, define
`respective corresponding device control signals, and
`provide those device control signals to the devices thereby
`to implement the operational change across the group.
`Ex. 1001, 20:46–59.
`Claim 1 recites a “relative group leader” which, for reasons explained in
`Section II.A, supra, we interpret as a master multimedia device which is a member
`of a group, which controls slave multimedia devices within the group. Petitioner
`contends Deslippe’s master device 110 is a “relative group leader” as claimed. Pet.
`22. However, as Patent Owner observes, “[t]he master console device 110 is not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`disclosed in Deslippe as capable of playing media and thus is not a multimedia
`device.” Prelim. Resp. 25. We agree with Patent Owner’s assertion.
`In this regard, the ’294 patent states “[t]he master device 110 can include,
`for example, a stand-alone control console or a control program using
`communication abilities of a computer (e.g., desktop, laptop, or handheld
`computer).” Ex. 1001, ¶ 42. Deslippe also states “[t]he slave devices 112A–112D
`can include any of a variety of devices including a speaker, an electronic device
`with an audio playback and/or recording capability, or a device collecting and/or
`displaying information about an audio stream.” Id. Thus, because Deslippe’s
`master device 110 is not a multimedia device (whereas its slave devices 112 are),
`Deslippe does not disclose the claimed “relative group leader,” and thus does not
`anticipate claim 1.
`Petitioner also contends the claimed “system control interface” and “relative
`group leader” is provided by Deslippe’s master device 110. Pet. 22. According to
`Petitioner, master device 110 can be shared by multiple zones, which Petitioner
`considers to be the claimed “groups.” Id. at 24. Petitioner also notes that Deslippe
`discloses that audio network control system 100 can include more than one master
`device. Id. In addition, Petitioner states that Deslippe discloses that any one of the
`slave devices on the network could be an additional master device for controlling
`other network-connected devices. Id. at 24–25.
`As explained in Section II.A, supra, however, proper construction of the
`
`claim language calls for each group of devices to have its own “system control
`interface” and “relative group leader.” This construction precludes Deslippe’s
`master device 110 from serving as the “system control interface” and “group
`leader” for both Zones 1 and 2 because it is one device, not two separate devices,
`as required by the claim language. See Microsoft, 789 F.3d at 1298−99. Although
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`Petitioner and its Declarant contend that that the master device has the ability to act
`as if it were two different master devices (Ex. 1012, ¶ 83), Deslippe discloses that
`it is, in fact, not two different devices, but one. Ex. 1011, ¶¶ 42, 56.
`Although Petitioner contends Deslippe discloses that audio network control
`system 100 can include more than one master device (Pet. 24–25), Petitioner does
`not identify any disclosure in Deslippe which establishes that a master device is
`provided for each of multiple zones (which, again, Petitioner considers to be the
`claimed “groups”). Absent such disclosure, Deslippe cannot be considered to
`anticipate the claim.
`Furthermore, as indicated, Petitioner mentions Deslippe’s disclosure that a
`slave device could be a master device for other connected devices. Pet. 24–25.
`However, Petitioner does not explain how this disclosure satisfies the claim
`limitations of defining multiple groups of multimedia devices each with their own
`“system control interface” and “group leader.”
`Accordingly, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood to prevail
`in its contention claim 1 is unpatentable.
`4. Claim 13
`Claim 13, in relevant part, recites
`determining whether the device is a group leader relative to the
`one or more complementary devices; and
`in the case that the device is the group leader:
`defining a group representative of the networked multimedia
`system including the device and the one or more
`complementary devices;
`providing, for the group, a system control interface for receiving,
`from a control device, a system control signal indicative
`of an operational change to the group;
`receiving the system control signal; and
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`
`being responsive to the system control signal for defining
`respective corresponding device control signals and
`providing those device control signals to the devices
`thereby to implement the operational change across the
`group.
`Ex. 1001, 21:47–61.
`Petitioner contends Deslippe discloses claim 13 for the same reasons stated
`
`with respect to claim 1. Pet. 45. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has not
`shown that Deslippe’s master device is itself responsive to the system control
`signal to affect the operational change. Prelim. Resp. 40–41. We agree with
`Patent Owner’s contention that the language of claim 13 noted above requires that
`the group leader is one of the devices in the group of multimedia devices, and that
`the “group leader,” like the other devices in the group, is responsive to the system
`control signal to affect the operational change (such as volume adjustment). See
`Section II.A, supra.
`Specifically, claim 13 recites “determining whether the device is a group
`leader,” “defining a group representative of the networked multimedia system
`including the device and the one or more complementary devices,” and “being
`responsive to the system control signal for defining respective corresponding
`device control signals and providing those device control signals to the devices.”
`Ex. 1001. This claim language establishes the group leader is a device that is
`responsive to a device control signal, i.e., that it is a multimedia device that can be
`controlled to implement an operational change. Petitioner does not show that
`Deslippe’s master device is itself responsive to a system control signal to affect an
`operational change, such as a volume adjustment, which the claim language
`requires.
`Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown a
`reasonable likelihood to prevail in showing claim 13 is unpatentable.
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`
`5. Claim 18
`Claim 18 contains the identical language noted above for claim 13. Ex.
`1001. Petitioner contends that claim 18 substantively tracks the language of claims
`1 and 13, and, thus, for the same reasons as stated with respect to those claims,
`Deslippe anticipates claim 18. Pet. 47–48. Patent Owner contends Petitioner has
`not shown a reasonable likelihood to prevail in its challenge of claim 18 for the
`reasons stated with respect to claims 1 and 13. Prelim. Resp. 47–48.
`For the reasons stated with respect to claims 1 and 13, we are not persuaded
`Petitioner has shown that Deslippe anticipates claim 18. Particularly, Petitioner
`has not shown Deslippe’s master device is “a group leader relative to one or more
`complementary devices” that is a multimedia device that is itself responsive to the
`system control signal to implement an operational change. See Section II.A, supra.
`Thus, we are not persuaded Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood to prevail
`in showing claim 18 is unpatentable.
`6. Claim 19
`Independent claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium to
`carry out “a method for providing a multimedia system including two or more
`networked multimedia devices.” In relevant part, claim 19 further recites
`defining a group, the group being representative of a networked
`multimedia system including the devices;
`providing, as a relative group leader for the group, a system
`control interface for receiving, from a control device, a
`system control signal indicative of an operational change
`to the group;
`receiving the system control signal;
`being responsive to the system control signal for providing
`respective corresponding device control signals to the
`devices to implement the operational change across the
`group.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 23:10–20.
`Petitioner contends that claim 19, while not identical, substantively tracks the
`language of claims 1 and 13, and thus is anticipated for the reasons stated with
`respect to those claims. Pet. 48. Patent Owner contends Deslippe fails to
`anticipate claim 19 for the same reasons stated with respect to claims 1 and 13.
`Prelim. Resp. 48.
`
`For similar reasons as stated with respect to claims 1 and 13, we are not
`persuaded Deslippe anticipates claim 19. As explained in Section II.A, the
`“relative group leader” of claim 19 is required to be a multimedia device within the
`defined group of multimedia devices. Deslippe’s master device 110 is not a
`multimedia device: rather, it is a computer that has not been shown to have
`multimedia capabilities. Ex. 1012, ¶ 42.
`Also, Deslippe’s master device 110 is not a member of a group of
`multimedia devices. Accordingly, Deslippe does not disclose “a relative group
`leader” that is itself a “multimedia device” as recited in claim 19.
`
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded Petitioner has shown a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in the challenge to patentability of claim 19 as anticipated
`by Deslippe.
`
`7. Claim 25
`Independent claim 25 recites
`a plurality of networked multimedia playback devices including a
`relative group leader, the group leader providing a system control
`interface for receiving, from a control device, a system control
`signal indicative of an operational change to the multimedia
`system, wherein the group leader is responsive to the system
`control signal for providing respective corresponding device
`control signal to each of the multimedia playback devices to
`implement the operational change across the multimedia system.
`Ex. 1001, 24:54–63.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`Petitioner states that Deslippe anticipates claim 25 for the reasons stated with
`respect to claim 1. Pet. 49. Patent Owner argues Deslippe fails to anticipate claim
`25 for the reasons stated with respect to claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 49–50.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that claim 25 requires that the group leader is
`one of the multimedia playback devices. Because Deslippe has not been shown to
`disclose that the master device 110 is a multimedia device that is a group leader for
`a group of multimedia devices, we are not persuaded Deslippe anticipates claim
`25. Accordingly, we are not persuaded Petitioner has shown a reasonable
`likelihood that claim 25 is anticipated by Deslippe.
`8. Claims 2–4, 10, 14, 17, 20, 26, and 27
`These claims are dependent from independent claims 1, 13, 18, 19, and 25,
`and thus incorporate all of their limitations. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4. For the same
`reasons stated with respect to their independent claims, Petitioner has not
`established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that any of these
`claims are anticipated by Deslippe.
`C. Obviousness Ground based on Deslippe
`Principles of Law
`1.
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
`a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is
`resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope
`and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence
`of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`2.
`Petitioner’s Declarant states “a person having ordinary skill in the art
`relevant to the ’294 Patent at the time of the alleged invention, would have the
`equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as
`a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering,
`or the equivalent, and approximately 2–4 years of professional experience in the
`fields of networking and consumer audio systems, or an equivalent level of skill
`and knowledge.” Ex. 1012, ¶ 46. Patent Owner does not dispute this
`characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt this
`statement as describing the level of ordinary skill in the art pertinent to the ’294
`patent in our obviousness analysis.
`
`3.
`
`Scope and Content of Deslippe
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 11 and 15–17 of the ’294 patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Deslippe. Pet. 50. The disclosure of
`Deslippe was addressed previously.
`Analysis of Obviousness Ground based on Deslippe
`4.
`Claim 11 recites “[a] method as recited in claim 1 wherein the system
`control interface is provided in accordance with an open networking protocol.”
`Ex. 1001, 21:31–33. Claim 11 thus incorporates the limitations of claim 1. 35
`U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4. As noted, Deslippe differs from claim 1 in that its master device
`110 has not been shown to be a “relative group leader” that is a multimedia device,
`such as a speaker, that is one of a group of multimedia devices responsive to a
`system control signal to implement an operational change, such as a volume
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`adjustment. Petitioner’s contentions with respect to claim 11 do not address this
`difference or explain why it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`in the art. Pet. 50–51. Accordingly, we are not persuaded Petitioner has shown a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing obviousness of claim 11 in view of
`Deslippe.
`Claim 15 is similar to claim 11 but depends from claim 13 and thus
`incorporates all of its limitations. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4. Petitioner has not shown
`that Deslippe’s master device 110 is one of a group of multimedia devices that is
`responsive to the system control signal it generates to implement an operational
`change, such as a volume adjustment. Petitioner has not explained why this
`difference between claim 15 and Deslippe would have been obvious to a person of
`ordinary skill. Accordingly, we are not persuaded Petitioner has shown a
`reasonable likelihood to prevail in showing claim 15 is unpatentable.
`Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and thus incorporates its limitations. 35
`U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4. For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, Petitioner has
`not shown a reasonable likelihood to prevail in showing claim 16 is obvious over
`Deslippe.
`Claim 17 recites “[a] method as recited in any preceding claim, wherein at
`least some of the devices include a radio interface and wherein the network
`includes a wireless network.” Ex. 1001, 22:23–25. Petitioner’s contentions with
`respect to this claim (Pet. 45–47) do not address the noted deficiencies of
`independent claims 1 and 13, which are incorporated in multiple-dependent claim
`17. Accordingly, we are not persuaded Petitioner has shown a reasonable
`likelihood to prevail in showing claim 17 is obvious over Deslippe.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`In light of the foregoing, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that (1) claims 1–4, 10, 13, 14, 17–20, and
`25–27 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (e) based on Deslippe, and
`(2) claims 11 and 15–17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Deslippe.
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of the ’294
`patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01044
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`George I. Lee
`Sean M. Sullivan
`Rory P. Shea
`John Dan Smith III
`lee@leesullivanlaw.com
`sullivan@ls3ip.com
`shea@ls3ip.com
`smith@ls3ip.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Christopher J. Rourk
`Wasif H. Qureshi
`crourk@jw.com
`wqureshi@jw.com
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`