`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: January 23, 2019
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIDSTREAM LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Twitter, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of
`claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11–17, 19–26, and 28–30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’304 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Youtoo Technologies,
`LLC (the original “Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response.
`Upon consideration of the Petition, we instituted an inter partes review
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, as to claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11–17, 19–26, and 28–
`30 of the ’304 patent. Paper 8 (“Dec.”).
`Subsequent to institution, VidStream LLC (subsequent “Patent
`Owner”) filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 50, “PO Resp.”), Petitioner
`filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 53, “Reply”), and Patent
`Owner filed a Sur-Reply to Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 60, “Sur-Reply”).
`Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 57, “Pet. Mot. Exc.”), Patent
`Owner filed an Opposition (Paper 64, “PO Opp. Mot. Exc.”), and Petitioner
`filed a Reply (Paper 66). Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 59,
`“PO Mot. Exc.”), Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 63, “Pet. Opp. Mot.
`Exc.”), and Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper 67). An oral hearing was
`held October 19, 2018. A transcript of the hearing has been entered into the
`record. Paper 70 (“Tr.”).
`This Final Written Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`For the reasons that follow, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of
`the evidence that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties state that the ’304 patent is the subject of a court
`proceeding styled Youtoo Technologies, LLC v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 3:16-
`cv-00764-N (N.D. Tex.). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`Patent Owner at the time, Youtoo Technologies, LLC (“Youtoo”),
`filed for bankruptcy on November 30, 2017. Ex. 2001. During the
`bankruptcy proceeding, the bankruptcy court approved an agreed order to
`sell certain of Youtoo’s property, including the patent challenged in this
`proceeding. Ex. 1029; Ex. 1031. On May 1, 2018, the bankruptcy trustee
`filed a report of sale indicating the challenged patent had been sold to STI-
`ACQ LLC, as assignee of Arundel Ventures LLC. Ex. 1032. On May 7,
`2018, and consistent with the report of sale, new mandatory notices were
`filed indicating STI-ACQ as Patent Owner. Paper 37. On May 18, 2018,
`new mandatory notices were filed indicating that VidStream LLC is the
`current Patent Owner. Paper 39; Paper 44.1 Due to the unusual facts of this
`proceeding, and in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c), the Chief
`Administrative Patent Judge extended the one-year period for issuing a Final
`Written Decision in the present proceeding. Paper 41; Paper 42.
`
`B. The ’304 Patent
`The ʼ304 patent is directed to computer methods and systems for
`receiving and distributing user-generated video content. Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`Figure 2 is reproduced below.
`
`
`1 Except as otherwise noted, “Patent Owner” herein refers to VidStream
`LLC.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 shows a content creation and distribution system (CCDS)
`202. Id. at 13:61–62. System 200 can include several servers connected to
`one or more communications network(s) 204. Id. at 13:61–66. CCDS 202
`includes a plurality of servers 206, 208, 210, 212, 214, 216, and 218. Id. at
`14:1–5. CCDS 202 communicates with a television distribution system
`220, that can include a network operations center for a television network
`and/or uplink facility from which a television network feed is distributed to
`carriers 228 that provide television services. Id. at 14:18–22. A user having
`a mobile device 230 capable of capturing SD or HD video or a computing
`device 232 having a video camera 234 can connect to the communications
`network(s) 204 and interface with CCDS 202. Id. at 14:30–36. Web hosting
`server 206 provides one or more web pages through which users can access
`services provided by CCDS 202. Id. at 14:36–38. Web hosting server 206
`can host a registration web page that allows users to register with the CCDS
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`202 and a HD recorder web page that provides users with access to a thin
`client application (or web application) that supports video capture. Id. at
`14:38–42. Web hosting server 206 also can allow fat client applications to
`be downloaded and installed on mobile device 230 or computing device 232.
`Id. at 14:44–46.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11–17, 19–26, and 28–30 of
`the ’304 patent. Claims 1, 17, 22, and 26 are independent claims. Claim 1,
`reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (highlighting
`added for emphasis):
`1. A method performed by data processing apparatus, the
`method comprising:
`receiving video data from a client computing device at a
`server system, wherein the video data is captured using a
`camera connected to the client computing device in accordance
`with instructions executed on the client computing device,
`wherein the instructions are provided to the client computing
`device by the server system and cause the video data to be
`captured in accordance with predetermined constraints and the
`predetermined constraints include a frame rate defined by the
`instructions;
`automatically transcoding the video data, using a server
`included in the server system, into at least one different format
`based on at least one of user credentials associated with a user
`of the client computing device or attributes associated with the
`video data, wherein at least one format of the transcoded video
`data defines a video file in a format appropriate for inclusion in
`a linear television programming broadcast; and
`uploading the transcoded video data to a distribution
`server for distribution.
`
`Id. at 27:57–28:10.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`11
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`12, 13, 29, and 30
`
`17 and 19–21
`
`22–25
`
`1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14–16, 26, and 28
`
`D. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted trial based on all asserted grounds of unpatentability as
`follows (Dec. 17–18):
`Reference(s)
`Lahti2, Current TV
`Mobile3, and Current TV
`FAQ4
`Lahti, Current TV
`Mobile, Current TV
`FAQ, and Washington5
`Lahti, Current TV
`Mobile, Current TV
`FAQ, Washington, and
`Franken6
`Lahti, Chen, and APA7
`Lahti, Current TV
`Mobile, Current TV
`FAQ, and APA
`Lahti
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`1, 4, 5, and 9
`
`
`2 Janne Lahti et al., “A Mobile Phone-based Context-Aware Video
`Management Application,” Multimedia on Mobile Devices II, Proc. of
`SPIE-IS&T Electronic Imaging, SPIE Vol. 6074, 60740O, 2006 (Ex. 1006)
`(“Lahti”).
`3 Current TV “create & upload: mobile” webpage (Ex. 1009) (“Current TV
`Mobile”).
`4 Current TV “FAQ” webpage (Ex. 1011) (“Current TV FAQ”).
`5 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0235200 A1, filed Mar. 21,
`2007, published Sept. 25, 2008 (Ex. 1007) (“Washington”).
`6 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0012965 A1, filed June 30,
`2008, published Jan. 8, 2009 (Ex. 1008) (“Franken”).
`7 Admitted Prior Art (Ex. 1001, 1:39–40) (“APA”).
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Principles of Law
`To prevail in its challenge to Patent Owner’s claims, Petitioner must
`demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are
`unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). To establish
`anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the
`claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc.
`v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp.
`v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Although the
`elements must be arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim,
`“the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of
`terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir.
`2009); accord In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
`A 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 of the invention to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art. 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).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(citation omitted). Petitioner relies on the testimony of Dr. Henry Houh,
`who testifies that a person with ordinary skill in the art “would possess (i) a
`Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Electrical and/or Computer
`Engineering, or equivalent training, and (ii) approximately two years of
`experience in network architecture and multimedia systems, including
`creating and distributing multimedia.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 44). Dr.
`James Olivier, Patent Owner’s declarant, applies a similar definition. PO
`Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 39).
`For purposes of this decision, we adopt Dr. Houh’s assessment of a
`person with ordinary skill in the art.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear.8 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`(2016). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms
`are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood
`by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`
`
`8 We would construe the claim terms discussed below the same under
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the following claim terms found
`in the challenged claims: ‘“transcoding’ (claims 1, 19, 22, 26),” and
`“‘buffered on the client computing device using scripts’ (claim 5).” Pet. 8–
`10. In our Decision to Institute, we interpreted these terms. Dec. 6–7.
`Neither party has indicated that our interpretations were improper, and we
`do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from
`our initial interpretations. Accordingly, the following constructions apply to
`this Decision: “transcoding” means “converting from one video format to
`another,” and “buffered on the client computing device using scripts” means
`“temporarily storing data in memory of the client computing device using a
`computer program, software application, or other unit of computer code.”
`Petitioner further proposes a construction for “predetermined
`constraints” recited in all of the challenged claims. We preliminarily
`adopted Petitioner’s construction. Dec. 6. Patent Owner proposes a “more
`appropriate version of the Petitioner’s proposed construction” as
`“parameters, rules, or restrictions provided to ensure compliance and
`compatibility with system requirements or goals, examples of which may
`include but are not limited to video length, video format type, video image
`resolution, video transmission bit rate, etc.” PO Resp. 6–7. Petitioner
`agrees with Patent Owner’s edits to Petitioner’s proposed construction.
`Reply 1 n.1; Tr. 6:12–21. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent
`Owner’s construction of “predetermined constraints.”
`
`D. Obviousness of claims over Lahti, Current TV Mobile, and
`Current TV FAQ
`Petitioner contends claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14–16, 26, and 28 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lahti, Current TV
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`Mobile, and Current TV FAQ. Pet. 10–14. In support of its showing,
`Petitioner relies upon the declaration of Dr. Henry Houh. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1003).
`
`1. Lahti
`Lahti describes a video management system including a video server
`and a mobile camera-phone application called MobiCon. Ex. 1006, 1
`(Abstract). MobiCon allows a user to capture videos, annotate them with
`metadata, specify digital rights management (DRM) settings, upload videos
`over a cellular network, and share the videos with others. Id. Lahti
`describes that the MobiCon application is downloaded over the air to a
`mobile camera-phone. Id. at 5. MobiCon operates on the Candela system
`architecture, which was developed as a solution for general video
`management and includes tools for video creation, analysis, annotation,
`storage, search, and delivery phases. Id. at 4.
`
`
`Figure 3 of Lahti is a high-level description of MobiCon.
`As shown above, the UploadClient, which is a mobile Java
`application, runs on a mobile phone, and UploadGateway, which is
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`implemented as a Java servlet, runs on the server. Id. at 5. The system
`provides wireless access over a mobile phone network to enable storing
`video clips on the server where it is possible to run more computation-
`intensive operations such as video transcoding. Id. Within the UploadClient
`is the UIManager. Id. The UIManager coordinates the video capture using
`the mobile phone’s camera, the saving of the video data to the Java Record
`Store system, the sending of video data to the Java Record Store system, and
`the sending of video sharing SMS messages to the other users. Id. Within
`the UploadGateway is the Video Manager Servlet. Id. at 7. After the video
`clip is uploaded via the UploadGateway, the video clip is handed over to the
`Video Manager Servlet. Id. In the Video Manger Servlet, the video clip is
`transcoded into different formats and bit rates in order to provide a scalable
`service quality for different devices and network connections. Id. The
`Video Manager Servlet prepares Real Video, H.264, and H.263 encoding for
`delivering the captured video content to mobile devices and MPEG-4 file
`format for desktop computers. Id.
`
`Figure 4 of Lahti is a high-level description of user authentication and
`
`video capturing.
`
`MobiCon functionality permits user authentication and video capture,
`in addition to editing/uploading the video clip. Id. at 6. The user
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`authentication and video capture functionalities are illustrated in Figure 4.
`Id. In Figure 4, MobiCon’s main screen is displayed after authentication of
`the user’s username and password. Id. In the main screen, the user has the
`option to capture a new clip (Screenshot 4). Id. A new video clip is
`captured in Capture Screen using Mobile Media API, and it is recorded
`according to 3GPP specification using AMR coding for audio and H.263 at
`176×144 pixels size at 15 frames per second for video. Id.
`
`2. Current TV Mobile and Current TV FAQ9
`Current TV Mobile states the following:
`Don’t just watch content on your mobile phone, make content
`and let the world see it—on Current’s national TV network—
`now available in 28 million homes. Current is the first and only
`TV network to showcase your mobile videos.
`
`Check out the call outs below, watch a sample, shoot some
`footage with your video phone and find out how the content you
`capture with your mobile can pay those overage charges. Oh,
`
`
`9 Petitioner contends that Current TV was an interactive television channel
`in the U.S. that permitted viewers to submit video content to be included in
`television programming. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1018, 8). Petitioner further
`argues that Current TV had an associated website that described the
`channel’s programming, scheduling, promotions, as well as how viewers
`could participate in programming by submitting their own content. Pet. 12.
`According to Petitioner, Current TV Mobile (Ex. 1009), Current TV
`Submission Guidelines (Ex. 1010), and Current TV FAQ (Ex. 1011) are
`pages from the Current TV associated website that were publically available
`by December 31, 2007. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1016, 1, 11–14, 19–29).
`Petitioner refers to pages from the website (Ex. 1009–1011) as the “Current
`TV References.” Pet. 12.
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`and make sure what you send to Current is something you and
`your friends would want to watch on TV!
`
`Ex. 1009, 2 (emphasis omitted).
`Current TV FAQ describes a POD as a short video that is anywhere
`from one minute to seven or eight minutes. Ex. 1011, 3.
`
`3. Discussion
`Petitioner asserts that the combination of Lahti, Current TV Mobile,
`and Current TV FAQ describes all of the elements of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14–
`16, 26, and 28. Pet. 14–41. Claim 1 recites “wherein the instructions are
`provided to the client computing device by the server system and cause the
`video data to be captured in accordance with predetermined constraints and
`the predetermined constraints include a frame rate defined by the
`instructions.”10 Independent claim 26 recites a similar phrase, “one or more
`servers . . . to: provide instructions for use by the user device for capturing
`video data in accordance with predetermined constraints, wherein the
`predetermined constraints include a frame rate defined by the instructions.”11
`Petitioner relies on Lahti to meet these disputed phrases. Pet. 21–23, 29–30.
`
`The focus of this trial is on whether Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that Lahti describes that the predetermined
`constraints, including frame rate, are defined by instructions provided to a
`mobile phone by the server, e.g., downloaded, as required by claims 1 and
`26. PO Resp. 8–28; Reply 2–16; Tr. 9:15–20, 35:10–12. For the reasons
`that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance
`
`10 Petitioner refers to this phrase as “limitation 1[c].” Pet. 21.
`11 Petitioner refers to this phrase as “limitation 26[b].” Pet. 29.
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`of the evidence that Lahti teaches or suggests the disputed phrases of claims
`1 and 26.
`Regarding claim 1’s “wherein the instructions are provided to the
`client computing device by the server system,” and similar language of
`claim 26, Petitioner contends that Lahti’s server provides MobiCon to the
`client computing device (mobile phone). Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1006, 5).
`Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood that a mobile application constituted software code that controls
`the operation of a device when executed on that device. Pet. 22 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 95).
`We find that Lahti describes a server that downloads the MobiCon
`application to a mobile phone. Lahti describes that
`MobiCon naturally needs to be easily installed without any extra
`tools or additional instructions. The server allows distribution of
`MobiCon application easily to mobile phone users by using
`Over-The-Air (OTA) specification from the Open Mobile
`Alliance, which enables mobile applications to be downloaded
`and installed over the cellular network.
`
`Ex. 1006, 5. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner’s contentions that a person
`having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a mobile
`application constitutes software code that controls the operation of a device
`when executed on that device. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 95). We find that
`MobiCon is such an application that includes code, e.g., instructions for
`controlling at least some aspects of a user’s mobile phone. Thus, we
`determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
`Lahti describes that “instructions are provided to the client computing device
`by the server system” as claimed in claim 1 and “one or more servers . . . to:
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`provide instructions for use by the user device” as recited in claim 26.
`Patent Owner does not dispute that Lahti describes these portions of the
`disputed phrases. PO Resp. 1.
`Claim 1 also recites that the instructions (provided to the client
`computing device by the server system) “cause the video data to be captured
`in accordance with predetermined constraints and the predetermined
`constraints include a frame rate defined by the instructions.” Claim 26
`recites a similar requirement. Petitioner contends that Lahti’s MobiCon
`provides parameters by which the mobile device (on which the MobiCon
`application is executing) captures video data. Importantly, Petitioner
`contends, “Lahti explains that MobiCon captures video using a user interface
`capture screen and further describes the parameters provided by the app that
`control the format and frame rate for the captured video.” Pet. 22 (emphasis
`added). In support of this contention, Petitioner cites to the following
`passage from Lahti:
`Then, MobiCon's main screen is displayed (Screenshot 3), where
`the user can choose to view and edit personal information, to load
`video clips, or to capture a new clip (Screenshot 4). A new video
`clip is captured in Capture Screen using Mobile Media API and
`it is recorded according to 3GPP specification using AMR
`coding for audio and H.263 at 176×144 pixels size at 15 frames
`per second for video.
`
`
`Ex. 1006, 6. After explaining that parameters such as video format, video
`resolution, and video frame rate are “predetermined constraints,” Petitioner
`concludes that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would further
`understand that Lahti discloses limitation 1[c] since MobiCon provides these
`parameters to the mobile device to control video capture.” Pet. 23 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–99) (emphasis added). Dr. Houh testifies that “[t]he
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`MobiCon app disclosed in Lahti describes capturing video using a user
`interface capture screen and describes the parameters provided by the app
`that control the format and frame rate for the captured video.” Ex. 1003
`¶ 97.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s contentions are not supported by
`Lahti itself because the passage Petitioner relies on from Lahti does not
`expressly or implicitly describe that the parameters, including frame rate, are
`provided by the instructions provided to the client computing device by the
`server system, e.g., the MobiCon application. PO Resp. 8–11. Patent
`Owner argues that the above description of recording video using parameters
`is equally consistent with recording video using a device’s native
`capabilities, “since all digital video data captured by camera phones or
`digital cameras necessarily inherently has a format (e.g., H.263), a resolution
`(e.g., 176×144), and a frame rate (e.g., 15 frames per second).” PO Resp. 9–
`10 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 58). Patent Owner further argues that it is more likely
`that the parameters came from the device’s native capabilities described in
`the Lahti example. Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1006, 6; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 60–62).
`We agree with Patent Owner that the passage Petitioner relies on to
`meet the disputed limitation does not describe that the predetermined
`constraints, including frame rate, are defined by the instructions (the
`MobiCon app that was downloaded from a server). Neither the Petition nor
`Petitioner’s expert explains how Lahti meets the disputed phrase; only that it
`does. Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1006, 6; Ex. 1001, 4:36–38, 10:61–11:1;
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–99). That representation, however, is not supported by Lahti
`itself.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`First, we find that Lahti does not expressly state that the
`predetermined constraints, including frame rate, come from the MobiCon
`application. The above passage is within the section styled “4.3 MobiCon
`Interface Flow Diagrams.” Ex. 1006, 6. The first sentence of that section
`explains, “This section presents the MobiCon functionality from the user
`perspective with a walkthrough of typical usage scenarios.” Id. Thus, the
`passage is within a section that describes an example, e.g., a typical usage
`scenario, “from the user perspective.” The second sentence from the above
`passage states that a new video clip “is captured in Capture Screen using
`Mobile Media API.” That same sentence then states “and it [the new video
`clip] is recorded according to 3GPP specification using AMR coding for
`audio and H.263 at 176×144 pixels size at 15 frames per second for video.”
`Notably, Lahti does not describe that the new video clip is recorded using
`parameters (instructions, or predetermined constraints) from the MobiCon
`application or even the Mobile Media API, even assuming the Mobile Media
`API to be part of MobiCon12 to record the new clip.
`Second, it is not disputed that the described parameters from the
`above passage, such as format (e.g., H.263), resolution (e.g., 176×144), and
`frame rate (e.g., 15 frames per second) are consistent with recording
`parameters of mobile phones. PO Resp. 9–10 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 58), 21;
`Reply 7 (acknowledging that a “POSITA would understand that devices in
`the pertinent timeframe were capable of recording at multiple resolutions
`and frame rates”). Moreover, record evidence shows that in 2006, the year
`Lahti published, technical specifications of the only phone described in
`
`12 Neither the Petition nor Dr. Houh (Ex. 1003) explains what the Mobile
`Media API is.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`Lahti—the Nokia 6630—describe as a video format H.263, a resolution of
`176×144 pixels, and a frame rate of 15 frames per second. Ex. 1006, 8;
`Ex. 2005, 2 (describing under “Video Recorder” resolution of “174 × 144”
`pixels and “H.263 video”); Ex. 2006, 3 (describing “Camcorder Resolution”
`as “176×144 pixel” and “15 fps”); Ex. 2007 (describing under “Digital
`Player (Recorder)” “3GP, H.263”).13 These native video capture parameters
`of the Nokia 6630 phone, the only described phone in Lahti, are the exact
`same as those described in the above paragraph.
`Thus, the described Lahti parameters could have come from the
`recording parameters of the mobile phone mentioned in the singular
`example. Lahti simply does not state where the parameters originate, and
`neither the Petition nor Dr. Houh’s original declaration provides an
`explanation for why the parameters come from the MobiCon application as
`opposed to somewhere else, like the mobile device. Again, the Petition and
`Petitioner’s expert fail to explain how Lahti meets the disputed phrase; only
`that it does. Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1006, 6; Ex. 1001, 4:36–38, 10:61–11:1;
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–99). As such, the Petition fails to show by a preponderance
`of the evidence that Lahti meets the disputed phrase.14
`In its Reply, Petitioner directs attention to several new passages in
`Lahti, along with new testimonial evidence to support the position taken in
`the Petition—that Lahti describes the disputed claimed phrase. Reply 2–4
`
`
`13 As explained below in connection with Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude, we
`disagree with Petitioner that “[e]ach exhibit is hearsay.” Pet. Mot. Exc. 2.
`14 The burden of showing something by a preponderance of the evidence
`simply requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more
`probable than its nonexistence. Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v.
`Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993).
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`(citing Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 13–20). For instance, Petitioner argues that a person
`having ordinary skill in the art “would understand Lahti to teach that
`changes are made to mobile phone settings using Software Developer Kits
`[SDKs], which are tools used by the paper’s authors, stating that ‘[v]ideo
`recording . . . is relatively straightforward to implement with vendor
`provided SDKs.’” Reply 10 (citing Ex. 1006, 3). Petitioner further directs
`attention to Dr. Houh’s cross examination deposition where he explains how
`SDKs and application programming interfaces (APIs) work and how Lahti’s
`mention of SDKs would have been understood to mean that the MobiCon
`application specified parameters, including frame rate, for video capture.
`Reply 10–12 (citing multiple passages from Ex. 2008, 63:10–64:1, 75:10–
`76:4, 91:3–20). Also in the Reply, Petitioner presents new testimony,
`explaining the state of the art regarding mobile application tools such as
`operating systems, APIs, and SDKs. Reply 12–13 (citing Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 5–
`16). Moreover, for the first time, Petitioner contends in the Reply that the
`parameters would come from the UIManager. Reply 3–4. Notably, there is
`no explanation of SDKs, APIs, operating systems, or how the parameters
`come from MobiCon’s UIManager in connection with the Petition. There
`also is no explanation in the Petition of how a person having ordinary skill in
`the art would have understood, based on their knowledge of SDKs, APIs,
`operating systems, and MobiCon’s UIManager that Lahti describes the
`disputed claimed phrase. We determine that the Reply as outlined above
`raises several new issues.
`In its Petition, Petitioner points to a single paragraph from Lahti as
`meeting the disputed claim language, without explaining how the paragraph
`meets the disputed claim language. Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1006, 6; Ex. 1003
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`¶¶ 95–99). Petitioner’s Reply provides much more explanation and
`evidence that are missing from the Petition under the guise of responding to
`Patent Owner’s Response. We determine, however, that such explanation
`and evidence, which raises new issues, should have been presented in the
`context of the Petition. Accordingly, we need not and do not consider the
`new evidence and new arguments made in the Reply that Petitioner should
`have presented as part of the Petition. See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v.
`Illumina Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Once the Board
`identifies new issues presented for the first time in reply, neither this court
`nor the Board must parse the reply brief to determine which, if any, parts of
`that brief are responsive and which are improper.”). For this reason alone,
`we determine that Petitioner has failed to show that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14–
`16, 26, and 28 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
`Lahti, Current TV Mobile, and Current TV FAQ.
`Alternatively, even considering Petitioner’s additional Reply
`arguments and evidence, Petitioner fails to show by a preponderance of the
`evidence that Lahti meets the disputed phrase. To begin with, and
`importantly, Petitioner’s Reply fails to direct us to any other passages in
`Lahti that expressly describes the disputed claim language. During oral
`argument, Patent Owner confirmed this. Tr. 9:15–10:12. In addition,
`Petitioner does not dispute that the parameters from the above Lahti passage
`are consistent with parameters from native devices, e.g., mobile ph