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 IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Petitioner, SONOS, Inc., filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 1–20 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
`established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to the
`challenged claims. Therefore, we 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, 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 case on February 27, 2015.
`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. On March 7, 2016, Patent Owner’s motion to amend was granted
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`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 IPR2017-01044. 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’294 patent shows a wireless audio system
`210with 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
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`audio system 210. Id. at 6:41–48. Groups of 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. 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;
`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;
`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 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:33–53.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art reference:
`Millington US 8,234,395 B2 July 31, 2012
`(Ex. 1011).
`Lambourne US 7,571,014 B1 August 4, 2009
`(Ex. 1012).
`Lambourne US 8,483,853 B1 July 9, 2013 B1
`(Ex. 1013).
`Ishiwata
`US 2005/0014467 January 20, 2005 (Ex. 1016).
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`1–4, 10–20, and 25–27
`
`5–9 and 17
`
`References
`Basis
`§ 103(a)1 Millington, Lambourne ’014,
`Lambourne ’853
`§ 103(a) Millington, Lambourne ’014,
`Lambourne ’853, Ishiwata
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed
`Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (adopting the broadest
`
`
`1 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`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 address construction of certain claim terminology
`which will assist in rendering our Decision. 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 “zone” as “separate groups of media devices
`[that] can [] be unified into a single, autonomous ‘zone.’” Ex. 1001, 3:66–
`66. The parties proffer no interpretation for 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.”)
`Petitioner contends the term “relative zone leader” or “zone leader
`relative to one or more complementary devices” as the “common” leader
`shared by zone and group systems that may or may not be a member of each
`of the groups, and that may be a wireless speaker subsystem. Pet. 12, Ex.
`1001, 15:23–27, 15:5–7. Patent Owner does not appear to dispute this
`interpretation of “zone leader.” As Petitioner’s interpretation of the term
`appears consistent with the Specification, we adopt it in construing the claim
`language for purposes of this Decision.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`
`B.
`
`Challenge #1: Obviousness of Claims 1–4, 10–20, and 25–27 based
`on Millington, Lambourne ’014, and Lambourne ’853
`
`Petitioner contends Millington, Lambourne ’014, and Lambourne
`’853 render claims 1–4, 10–20, and 25–27 obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a). Pet. 13–55.
`
`1.
`
`Principles of Law
`
`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 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. 1017, ¶ 46.
`Patent Owner does not dispute this characterization of the level of ordinary
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`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 the Prior Art
`a. Millington
`Millington generally teaches a system that maintains synchrony of
`operations among devices with independent clocking arrangements.
`Abstract. A task distribution device distributes tasks to the members of a
`synchrony group over a network. Id. Each task is associated with a time
`stamp indicating when the member device is to perform the task. Id. Each
`member determines a time differential between its own clock and that of the
`task distribution device in order to determine when it is to execute the task.
`Id.
`
`Figure 2A of Millington, shown below, includes two synchrony
`groups 20(1) and 20(2) with respective master devices 21 and slave devices
`22.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2A of Millington shows synchrony groups 20(1) and
`20(2) each with respective master devices 21 and slave devices
`22.
`
`
`Zone player 11, operating as an audio information channel device 23,
`provides audio and playback timing information to the master and slave
`devices 21 and 22. Ex. 1011 14:6–12. A user can operate user interface
`module 13 to adjust playback volume of a master device 11, which in turn
`adjusts the playback volumes of slave devices 22 within a synchrony group.
`Id. at 12:55–67, 13:64–14:5.
`
`b.
`Lambourne ’014 is directed to a multi-zone system including
`multimedia players, each located in a zone. Ex. 1012 Abstract. A controller
`
`Lambourne ’014
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`may control the operations of the zone players remotely from any one of the
`zones. Id. Two or more zones may be dynamically grouped as a zone group
`for synchronized operations. Id. Zone group configuration can be managed
`by an interactive user interface of a controlling device. Id. Audio volume
`control of a zone group can be performed individually or synchronously as a
`group. Id. Zone players in a zone group are synchronized to play together
`by a zone group head. Id. at 5:34–44.
`
`Lambourne ’853
`
`c.
`Lambourne ’853 claims priority to the ‘407 provisional application.
`Ex. 1015. A Figure from the ’407 provisional application showing a user
`interface is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`
`The above Figure from the ’407 provisional application shows
`auser interface for grouping different zones together.
`
`
`The user interface can be used to add groups of zones of multimedia devices
`together. Id.
`
`4.
`a.
`
`Obviousness Analysis
`Reasons to Combine
`
`Petitioner sets forth several reasons to combine Millington,
`Lambourne ’014, and Lambourne ’853. Pet. 14–15. Particularly, Petitioner
`states all three references pertain to Petitioner’s common networked audio
`system, and Petitioner is listed as the assignee. Id. Petitioner notes the
`references describe aspects of Petitioner’s networked audio system using
`nearly identical terminology and address similar types of problems in the art
`related to configuring, controlling, and playing audio on networked devices.
`Id. Petitioner also notes that Lambourne ’014 is a continuation-in-part of
`Millington. Id. Petitioner further states Robert A. Lambourne is an inventor
`on both Lambourne ’014 and Lambourne ’853. Id.
`Patent Owner contends Petitioner’s reasons to combine are conclusory
`and non-specific, and fail to “include articulated reasoning with some
`rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”
`Prelim. Resp. 61. Patent Owner also asserts Petitioner fails to provide a
`specific, adequate explanation why and how a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have modified Millington in order to incorporate the teachings of
`Lambourne ’014 and Lambourne ’853. Id. at 62. Patent Owner further
`contends Petitioner fails to point to any language in any of the references
`that indicates or details Petitioner’s system to which they relate (if any). Id.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`at 63. Patent Owner contends there is no authority that confers
`combinability under § 103 merely based on assignment of the references to
`the same entity, or that the references use nearly identical terminology or
`address common problems. Id. Patent Owner further contends no authority
`supports that the references are combinable for the sole reason that
`Lambourne ’014 is a continuation-in-part of Millington and Lambourne ’014
`and Lambourne ’853 have the same named inventor. Id. at 64. Finally,
`Patent Owner contends Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony is unhelpful
`because it merely provides the same statements made in the Petition. Id.
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we agree with Petitioner that a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Millington, Lambourne
`’014, and Lambourne ’853. As Petitioner notes, the references address
`configuring, controlling, and playing audio on networked devices, and thus
`have similarities that would have led a person of ordinary skill to combine
`them. Pet. 14–15. Millington addresses the problem of configuring
`multimedia devices into synchrony groups controlled to play audio
`simultaneously. Ex. 1011, Abstract, Fig. 2A. Lambourne ’014 addresses the
`problem of forming zone groups of multimedia players to control
`characteristics such as audio volume across a zone group. Ex. 1012,
`Abstract. Lambourne ’853 also addresses the problem of configuring and
`controlling multimedia players in a zone group, as well as joining together
`zone groups to form a zone scene (a collection of zone groups). Ex. 1013,
`Abstract, 8:35–47. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill in the art will
`be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a
`puzzle.” KSR at 420. Logically, the references piece together and build
`upon one another as extensions, starting with the synchrony groups of
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`Millington, to the uniform audio control of a zone group per Lambourne
`’014, to the joining of zone groups together for joint audio control as
`disclosed in Lambourne ’853.
`We also agree with Petitioner that the common assignment of
`references related to the same networked audio system, the priority
`relationship between the references, and their common inventors, are all
`factors that would have suggested their combination to a person of ordinary
`skill in the art.
`Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we conclude Petitioner
`has made a sufficient showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have combined the references for the stated reasons.
`Obviousness Analysis
`b.
`Claim 1
`Petitioner contends all features of claim 1 are taught by the
`
`combination of Millington, Lambourne ’014, and Lambourne ’853. Pet. 16–
`44. Patent Owner contends several features of claim 1 are not disclosed by
`the combination of references. Prelim. Resp. 25–64. We address the
`disputed language below.
`“defining at least one zone, the zone being representative of a networked
`multimedia system including two or more groups”
`
`Petitioner contends Millington discloses defining a networked
`
`multimedia system comprising different “groupings or sets of zone players”
`to playback synchronous audio. Pet. 26–27, Ex. 1011 4:64–5:9, 5:42–44,
`13:20–30, 13:53–14:5, Fig. 2A. Petitioner also contends Lambourne ’014
`teaches forming a new zone group by combining a zone player with an
`existing zone group. Pet. 28–30, Ex. 1012, 4:11–26. Petitioner further
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`contends Lambourne ’853 teaches defining a “zone scene” (the claimed
`“zone”) as two or more “sets of linked zones” (the claimed “groups.”) in its
`provisional application. Pet. 30–31, Ex. 1015, 12:8–13:2, App’x A, 14.
`
`Patent Owner contends “Millington does not disclose ‘defining [a]
`zone’ of two or more of those synchrony groups, or treating two or more
`synchrony group as one grouping for control purposes” because synchrony
`groups 20(1) and 20(2) are controlled independently. Pet. 25, Ex. 1011,
`13:65–14:2. However, this particular limitation of claim 1 does not recite
`controlling two or more groups of multimedia devices (this feature is recited
`in a subsequent element of the claim). In any case, as noted, Lambourne
`’853 teaches combining multiple zones to form a zone scene, which teaches
`the claimed feature. Ex. 1013, 8:35–47, Ex. 1015, 12:8–13:2, App’x A, 14.
`Patent Owner does not address Lambourne ’853 or its provisional
`application, Lambourne ’407.
`“providing, for the zone, a system control interface . . . wherein the zone has
`a relative zone leader to . . . provide those device control signals to the
`devices thereby to implement the operational change across the zone”
`
`
`Petitioner contends “Millington ’395 discloses that each ‘zone player’
`
`(including the master zone player device) includes a ‘user interface module
`interface 44’ (the claimed ‘system control interface’) that can ‘receive
`control signals from the user interface module 13 (FIGS. 1 and 2) for
`controlling operations of the zone player 11(n), and provides status
`information to the user interface module 13.’” Pet. 20, Ex. 1011, 17:37–42.
`Petitioner further states “Millington ’395 discloses that each ‘synchrony
`group’ includes a zone player that is a ‘master device’ (the claimed ‘group
`leader’) that receives from a ‘user interface module’ (the claimed ‘control
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`device’) ‘control information’ (the claimed ‘system control signal’) for
`implementing various operational changes across the group.” Id., Ex. 1011,
`8:29–59.
`
`Patent Owner contends Petitioner fails to show a system control
`interface “for the zone” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 33. However, as
`Petitioner notes, Millington provides that “the zone player 11(n) includes a
`user interface module interface 44 that can receive control signals from the
`user interface module 13 (FIGS. 1 and 2) for controlling operations of the
`zone player 11(n), and provides status information to the user interface
`module 13.” Ex. 1011, 17:38–42. In the case in which zone player 11(n)
`acts as a master device, the user interface module interface 44 of the master
`device zone player 11(n) acts as a system control interface for the zone. Ex.
`1011, 8:50–54. Petitioner notes that “Lambourne ’014 discloses a process of
`defining a ‘new zone group’ (the claimed ‘zone’) by combining at least two
`existing zone groups (the claimed ‘groups’) of networked audio devices. Ex.
`1012, 5:34–38. Further, Petitioner states “Lambourne ’853 teaches a type of
`group called a ‘zone scene’ (the claimed “zone”) that comprises two zone
`groups (the claimed ‘two or more groups’).” Pet. 41. Petitioner also notes
`that “Lambourne ’853 teaches that ‘when a user increases the audio volume
`of the group from the controller, the signals or data of increasing the audio
`volume for the group are sent to one of the zone players and causes other
`zone players in the group to be increased together in volume and in scale.’”
`Pet. 41–42, Ex. 1015, 10:20–24. Putting these teachings together, we agree
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`with Petitioner that the combination of Millington, Lambourne ‘’014, and
`Lambourne ‘’853 teaches the claimed limitation.
`
`Patent Owner further contends Millington’s audio information
`channel device 23 that transmits timing information to zone players, cannot
`be the claimed “zone leader” because it does not receive the “zone control
`signal.” Prelim. Resp. 33–36. Patent Owner acknowledges that Millington
`teaches a zone player can act as both a master device 21 and an audio
`information channel device 23. Ex. 1011, 8:4–28. However, Patent Owner
`argues this does not mean the master device 21 and audio information
`channel device 23 are the same device. Prelim. Resp. 36, Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 57–
`58. We disagree. For purposes of this decision, we determine that the
`disclosure that master device 21 and audio information channel device 23
`can be implemented on the same zone player 11 means they are
`implemented in the same device.
`
`Patent Owner further contends Millington’s master device 21 can only
`control the devices within its respective synchrony group, not across
`multiple synchrony groups. Prelim. Resp. 37. However, Petitioner
`combines Lambourne ’014 to show this feature. Ex. 1012, 5:34–38. Patent
`Owner does not adequately address this teaching in its contention.
`Alleged Deficiencies of Lambourne ’014
`Patent Owner contends the “zone” steps of claim 1 are not disclosed
`
`by Lambourne ’014. Prelim. Resp. 50–55. In particular, Patent Owner
`contends Lambourne ’014 fails to disclose forming multiple groups of zone
`players. Prelim. Resp. 51. However, as noted, Millington discloses this
`feature by showing two synchrony groups with master and slave multimedia
`devices. Ex. 1011, Fig. 2A.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`Patent Owner also contends Lambourne ’014 fails to disclose
`
`“defining at least one zone” in the ‘’294 patent because the reference lacks a
`disclosure of a relative zone leader for at least one zone in addition to two
`relative group leaders for at least two groups. Prelim. Resp. 52. Patent
`Owner’s criticisms against Lambourne ’014 alone fail to take into account
`its combination Millington and Lambourne ’853, and are thus unpersuasive.
`See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re
`Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In addition, the manner in which
`Petitioner combines the references to arrive at the claimed invention has
`been addressed in the previous section.
`Prior Art Status of Lambourne ’853
`Patent Owner contends Lambourne ’853 is not prior art because it was
`
`filed on September 11, 2007, and thus after the October 17, 2006 priority
`date of the ’294 patent. Prelim. Resp. 55. Petitioner contends Lambourne
`’853 is entitled to the priority date of September 12, 2006 for its provisional
`application, Lambourne ’407. Pet. 14. Patent Owner contends Petitioner did
`not show that the claims of the ’853 patent draw support from Lambourne
`’407, and thus contend Petitioner failed to make the affirmative showing
`required in Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d
`1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Prelim. Resp. 56.
`For purposes of this decision, we determine that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that Lambourne ’407 provides support for at least some claims of
`the ’853 patent. For example, “displaying” and “facilitating” steps of claim
`10 derive support from Figure 3 and corresponding description at pages 12
`to 13 of Lambourne ’407, and the “transmitting” step derives support at
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`Figure 1 and page 6 of Lambourne ’407. Accordingly, we decline to deny
`the Petition on this ground at this time.
`Alleged Deficiencies of Lambourne ’853
`Patent Owner contends that Lambourne ’853 fails to disclose a “zone
`
`leader” for a “zone scene” that receives a control signal and provides device
`control signals to implement an operational change across a scene. Prelim.
`Resp. 58–59. Patent Owner also contends Lambourne ’853 fails to disclose
`the claimed “system control interface” for the “zone scene.” Id.
`Petitioner states “Lambourne ’853 teaches that one zone player (the
`claimed “zone leader”) may receive a zone change command (the claimed
`“zone control signal”) indicative of an operational change to the zone scene
`and in response, define an provide volume adjustment, mute/unmute, play,
`and play mode signals (the claimed “device control signals”) to the devices
`in the zone scene (the claimed “zone”) to implement the volume adjustment
`across the zone.” Prelim. Resp. 42, Ex. 1015, 13:5–14. Also, Figure 3A of
`the ’853 patent shows an interface for grouping together different zones. Ex.
`1013. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we are not persuaded
`Lambourne ’853 is deficient as argued by Patent Owner.
`Claims 2–4, 10–20, and 25–27
`Patent Owner contends Petitioner fails to show claim 13’s
`
`“determining whether the device is a group leader relative to the one or more
`complementary devices” and “determining whether the device is a zone
`leader relative to the one or more complementary devices and one or more
`further groups of complementary devices,” and similar limitations in claim
`18. Pet. 68, 70–71. Although Patent Owner is correct in this contention,
`Lambourne ’014 and Lambourne ’853 mention applicability of their
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`inventions to stereo systems, which are complementary devices. Ex. 1012,
`5:28–32, Ex. 1013, 4:56–59.
`
`For the remaining claims, Patent Owner relies on the foregoing
`contentions with respect to claim 1, which we find unpersuasive for the
`stated reasons.
`
`Challenge # 2: Obviousness of Claims 5–9 and 17 based on
`C.
`Millington, Lambourne ’014, Lambourne ’853, and Ishiwata
`
`The scope and content of Millington, Lambourne ’014, and
`Lambourne ’853, the differences between them and the claimed invention,
`and the level of ordinary skill in the art, were addressed in the previous
`section. We now discuss the relevant portion of Ishiwata.
`Ishiwata
`1.
`Ishiwata discloses (1) a manual approach for assigning “master/slave”
`
`roles to devices (Ex. 1016, ¶ 6), and an automatic approach in which devices
`assign themselves “master/slave” roles (Ex. 1016, ¶ 15). Ishiwata further
`discloses defining a device which has a greater physical address as the
`master device. Ex. 1016, ¶ 69.
`Reasons to Combine
`2.
`Petitioner contends Millington discloses a manual approach in which
`the first player selected by the user is assigned the “master” role. Pet. 56.
`Petitioner states “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`the art reviewing the Sonos combination to pursue other known options for
`determining ‘master/slave’ roles, such as those based on automatically
`assigning those roles as disclosed in Ishiwata ’467.” Id. Petitioner further
`contends one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`combine Ishiwata with the other references to eliminate the need for a user
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`to manually select the “master.” Pet. 57. Petitioner further asserts that
`modifying the Sonos combination with Ishiwata “would have arisen from, at
`most, ordinary innovation, ordinary skill, or common sense, and such a
`combination would have been obvious to try and predictable.” Id.; Ex. 1017
`¶ 133.
`
`Patent Owner contends the only basis for combining the references is
`that all involve assigning master/slave devices. Prelim. Resp. 74–75. Patent
`Owner also states Ishiwata is in the field of Bluetooth networks, not
`managing multimedia or audio playback devices, and that Petition has not
`sufficiently explained why one would combine Ishiwata with the other
`references. Id.
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we agree with Petitioner that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use automatic assignment of
`master and slave roles for devices rather than the more difficult task of
`manual assignment, and thus, we determine Petitioner has shown a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contention that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the references.
`Obviousness Analysis
`3.
`Claim 5
`Claim 5 recites “A method as recited in claim 2 wherein each device
`
`has a respective hierarchical identifier for facilitating identification of the
`leader device.” As Petitioner notes, Ishiwata states “any of the devices
`which has a greater physical address is defined to be the master.” Pet. 58–
`61, Ex. 1016, ¶ 69. Patent Owner contends Ishiwata’s comparison is only
`intended as a tie breaker when two devices have the same number of
`connections, and that this comparison does not indicate which device is the
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`master in an overall hierarchy. Prelim. Resp. 76–77. Nonetheless, for
`purposes of this Decision, we determine that Ishiwata discloses comparison
`of physical addresses hierarchically, and thus suggests the claimed
`invention.
`
`Claim 6
`Claim 6 recites “A method as recited in claim 5 wherein the
`
`hierarchical identifiers are embedded in respective unique device
`identifiers.” Petitioner contends that Ishiwata’s physical address could be
`embedded in Millington’s unicast address. Pet. 61–63. Patent Owner
`asserts Millington does not disclose that its addresses serve as “hierarchical
`identifiers” within Millington’s system. Prelim. Resp. 77. However, since
`Ishiwata does teach the use of hierarchical identifiers, we do not find it
`necessary that Millington also do so in order for the claimed limitation to be
`taught by the combination of the references.
`Claim 7
`Claim 7 recites “A method as recited in claim 6 wherein the unique
`
`device identifiers are MAC addresses.” Ex. 1001. Petitioner contends a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a Bluetooth device
`address, as taught by Ishiwata, is a MAC address. Pet. 63, Ex. 1017,
`¶¶ 145–146. Patent Owner relies on the arguments presented for claim 6,
`which we found unpersuasive for the stated reasons.
`Claim 8
`Claim 8 recites “A method as recited in claim 1 wherein the devices
`
`each autonomously determine whether they are the group leader device.”
`Ex. 1001. Petitioner contends “Ishiwata ’467 teaches that each device in a
`household “automatically” determines, “without manual operation” by a
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01045
`Patent 7,987,294 B2
`
`user, whether it or another network device is suitable to be the ‘master’
`device (the c
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
