UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`TWITTER, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YOUTOO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`Issued: June 11, 2013
`Application No.: 13/185,471
`Filed: July 18, 2011
`Title: Content Creation and Distribution System
`_________________
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`TWITTER, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YOUTOO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`Issued: June 11, 2013
`Application No.: 13/185,471
`Filed: July 18, 2011
`Title: Content Creation and Distribution System
`_________________
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND ENGAGEMENT .................................................... 5
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 5
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED AND
`INFORMATION RELIED UPON REGARDING ’304 PATENT ...............11
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW ....................................................13
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’304 PATENT ..........................................................16
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN
`THE PERTINENT ART FOR THE ’304 PATENT .....................................17
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION: BROADEST REASONABLE
`INTERPRETATION OF TERMS IN THE ’304 PATENT ..........................19
`
`A.
`
`“Predetermined constraints” ................................................................20
`
`B.
`
`“Transcoding” .....................................................................................22
`
`C.
`
`“Buffered on the client computing device using scripts” (cl. 5) ........23
`
`VIII. DETAILED ANALYSIS AND OPINION ...................................................24
`
`A. Ground 1: Lahti Combined with the Current TV References .............25
`
`1.
`
`The Prior Art References ..........................................................25
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Background on Lahti ......................................................25
`
`The Current TV References ............................................27
`
`2.
`
`Rationale and Motivation to
`Combine Lahti and Current TV ................................................28
`
`3.
`
`Analysis .....................................................................................34
`
`B. Ground 2: Lahti Combined with Current TV and Washington ..........83
`
`1.
`
`Overview of the Prior Art .........................................................83
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Lahti ................................................................................83
`
`Current TV ......................................................................83
`
`c) Washington .....................................................................83
`
`2.
`
`Rationale and Motivation to
`Combine Lahti, Current TV, and Washington ..........................86
`
`3.
`
`Analysis .....................................................................................91
`
`C. Ground 3: Lahti Combined with
`Current TV, Washington, and Franken ...............................................93
`
`1.
`
`Overview of the Prior Art .........................................................93
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Lahti ................................................................................93
`
`Current TV ......................................................................93
`
`c) Washington .....................................................................93
`
`d)
`
`Franken ...........................................................................93
`
`2.
`
`Rationale and Motivation to Combine
`Lahti with Current TV, Washington, and Franken ...................97
`
`3.
`
`Analysis ...................................................................................109
`
`D. Ground 4: Lahti Combined with Chen and the Admitted Art ..........154
`
`1.
`
`Overview of the Prior Art .......................................................154
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Lahti ..............................................................................154
`
`Chen ..............................................................................154
`
`Admitted Prior Art ........................................................157
`
`2.
`
`Rationale and Motivation to Combine
`Lahti with Chen and the Admitted Art ...................................157
`
`3.
`
`Analysis ...................................................................................162
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Lahti Combined with the
`Current TV References and the Admitted Art ..................................186
`
`1.
`
`Overview of the Prior Art .......................................................186
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Lahti ..............................................................................186
`
`Current TV ....................................................................186
`
`Admitted Prior Art ........................................................186
`
`2.
`
`Rationale and Motivation to Combine Lahti
`with the Current TV References and the Admitted Art ..........186
`
`3.
`
`Analysis ...................................................................................188
`
`F.
`
`Ground 6: Claims 1, 4, and 9 are
`Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Over Lahti. .......................223
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of the Prior Art .......................................................223
`
`Analysis ...................................................................................223
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Henry Houh, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND ENGAGEMENT
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert on behalf of Twitter,
`
`Inc. in connection with the above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) to provide my analyses and opinions on certain technical issues related to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304 (hereinafter “the ’304 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual and customary rate for the time I
`
`spent in connection with this IPR. My compensation is not affected by the
`
`outcome of this IPR.
`
`3.
`
`Specifically, I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding
`
`whether claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11-17, 19-26, 28, 29 and 30 (each a “Challenged
`
`Claim” and collectively the “Challenged Claims”) of the ‘304 Patent would have
`
`been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of January
`
`25, 2011. It is my opinion that each Challenged Claim would have been obvious to
`
`a POSITA after reviewing the prior art discussed herein.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`I am an expert in the fields of distributed multimedia systems,
`
`network architecture, networking, web site architecture, and Internet applications.
`
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my training, knowledge, and
`
`experience in the relevant art. A copy of my curriculum vitae is appended to this
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`declaration as Appendix A and provides a description of my professional
`
`experience, including my academic and employment history, publications,
`
`conference participation, awards and honors, and more. The following is a brief
`
`summary of my relevant qualifications and professional experience.
`
`5.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
`
`from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1998. I also received a Master
`
`of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1991, a
`
`Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in
`
`1989, and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Physics in 1990.
`
`6.
`
`I am currently self-employed as an independent technical consultant. I
`
`am also president of a company that provides supplemental science, technology,
`
`engineering, and science education to children of all ages.
`
`7.
`
`I first worked in the area of digital and streaming media, including
`
`real-time streamed audio and video, as part of my doctoral research at MIT from
`
`1991-1998. During that time, I was a research assistant in the Telemedia Network
`
`Systems (TNS) group at the Laboratory for Computer Science. The TNS group
`
`built a high-speed gigabit network and created applications that ran over the
`
`network. Example applications included ones for remote video capture,
`
`processing, and display of video on computer terminals. In addition to working on
`
`the design of core network components, designing and building the high speed
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`links, and designing and writing the device drivers for the interface cards, I also set
`
`up the group’s web server.
`
`8.
`
`The TNS group was the first group to initiate a remote video display
`
`over the web. Vice-President Al Gore visited our group in 1996 and received a
`
`demonstration of – and remotely drove – a radio controlled toy car with a wireless
`
`video camera mounted on it; the video was encoded by TNS-designed hardware,
`
`streamed over the TNS-designed network and displayed using TNS-designed
`
`software.
`
`9.
`
`I submitted and defended my Ph.D. thesis titled, “Designing Networks
`
`for Tomorrow’s Traffic,” in January 1998. As part of my thesis research, I
`
`analyzed local-area and wide-area flows to show a more efficient method for
`
`routing packets in a network, based on traffic patterns at the time. My thesis also
`
`addressed real-time streamed audio and video.
`
`10.
`
`I authored or co-authored twelve papers and conference presentations
`
`on our group’s research. I also co-edited the final report of the gigabit networking
`
`research effort with the Professor (David Tennenhouse) and Senior Research
`
`Scientist of the group (David Clark), who is generally considered to be one of the
`
`fathers of the Internet Protocol.
`
`11.
`
`I started building web servers in 1993, having set up the web server
`
`for the MIT Telemedia, Networks, and Systems Group, to which I belonged. It
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`was one of the first several hundred web servers in existence, and went on to
`
`provide what was likely one of the first live Internet video sessions initiated from a
`
`web site. I co-authored papers on our web server video system and on database-
`
`backed web sites for which I attended the first World Wide Web conference to
`
`present.
`
`12. From 1997 to 1999, I was a Senior Scientist and Engineer at NBX
`
`Corporation, a start-up that made business telephone systems that streamed
`
`packetized audio over data networks instead of using traditional phone lines. NBX
`
`was later acquired by 3Com Corporation, and the phone system is still available
`
`and being used at tens of thousands of businesses or more. As part of my work at
`
`NBX, I designed the core audio reconstruction algorithms for the telephones, as
`
`well as the packet transmission algorithms. I also designed and validated the core
`
`packet transport protocol used by the phone system. The protocol is used millions
`
`of times daily currently. Two of the company founders and I received US Patent
`
`No. 6,967,963 titled “Telecommunication method for ensuring on-time delivery of
`
`packets containing time sensitive data,” as a result of part of this work.
`
`13. Starting in 2001, I was the architect for the next generation of web
`
`testing product by Empirix known as e-Test Suite. e-Test Suite is now owned by
`
`Oracle Corporation. e-Test provided functional and load testing for web sites. e-
`
`Test emulated a user’s interaction with a web site and provided web developers
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`with a method of creating various scripts and providing both functional testing
`
`(e.g., did the web site provide the correct response) and load testing (e.g., could the
`
`web site handle 5000 users on its web site simultaneously). Among Empirix’s
`
`customers was H&R Block, who used e-Test Suite to test the tax filing
`
`functionality of their web site as whether the web site could handle a large
`
`expected load prior to the filing deadline.
`
`14. At Empirix, I also conceived, secured internal funding for, and
`
`managed the engineering for a new data platform test product known as the
`
`PacketSphere. The first capability the PacketSphere provided was to emulate a
`
`network so that lab testing could be done under conditions that mimicked the
`
`Internet, including configurable latency and packet loss. Later, PacketSphere
`
`provided the capability to generate large numbers of Voice-over-IP streams as well
`
`as measure the quality of the connection of VoIP streams. As part of my work, I
`
`continued to study the development of the Voice-over-IP market and worked with
`
`a number of Empirix customers to understand their market and product testing
`
`needs. Sonus Networks, a leading manufacturer of Voice-over-IP equipment, was
`
`a long-time customer of Empirix and one of the first customers of the
`
`PacketSphere product.
`
`15. Around 2006, at BBN, I helped create a search engine for audio and
`
`video which could be searched based on spoken word content. Our system used
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`speech recognition and natural language processing to create a search index of
`
`audio and video files posted publicly on the Internet. During the search process,
`
`audio and video with matching spoken words could be streamed to users through
`
`our web site. As the Vice President of Operations and Technology, I architected
`
`and helped build-out the back end of the system, which supported speech
`
`recognition, search indexing, and providing the capability for hosted audio and
`
`video streaming in search results. Today, at RAMP Inc., the project has grown to a
`
`product that is used by media outlets such as ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and Reuters.
`
`In addition, during this time at BBN, I continued to be engaged with Voice-over-IP
`
`related projects through the time I left BBN.
`
`16. Around 2008-2009, I was Chief Technology Officer at Eons, a
`
`venture backed company founded by Jeff Taylor, who also founded the hiring web
`
`site Monster.com. Eons built a social networking site.
`
`17.
`
`I have also continued to develop web sites for various business
`
`projects, as well as setting up web sites on a volunteer basis for various groups that
`
`I am associated with.
`
`18.
`
`I am the author of several publications devoted to a wide variety of
`
`technologies in the fields of electrical engineering and computer science. These
`
`publications are listed on my CV.
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`19.
`
`In summary, I have extensive familiarity with systems, networks,
`
`architectures, and methods related to traditional circuit-switched
`
`telecommunications, packet-based telecommunications, and systems that merged
`
`the two technologies, and I am familiar with what the states of these technologies
`
`were at the relevant time of the ‘304 Patent invention and before.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED AND
`INFORMATION RELIED UPON REGARDING ’304 PATENT
`
`20.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed the following materials
`
`bearing Exhibit Nos. that I understand are being referenced in the IPR to which my
`
`declaration accompanies:
`
`No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1004
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304 (“the ’304 Patent”)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`C.V. of Henry Houh
`
`“A Mobile Phone-based Context-aware Video Management
`Application,” Janne Lahti, et al., MULTIMEDIA ON MOBILE
`DEVICES II, PROC. OF SPIE-IS&T ELECTRONIC IMAGING, SPIE
`VOL. 6074, 60740O, 2006 (“Lahti”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0235200 to
`Washington (“Washington”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0012965 to Franken
`(“Franken”)
`
`Current TV “create & upload: mobile” webpage
`
`Current TV “Submission Guidelines” webpage
`
`Current TV “FAQ” webpage
`
`Excerpts of Dictionary of Computing and Digital Media
`
`Excerpts from Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`1017
`
`
`21.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,819,719 to Chen et al. (“Chen”)
`
`
`I understand that the ’304 Patent issued on June 11, 2013 from U.S.
`
`Patent Appl. No. 13/185,471, filed on July 18, 2011, which is a continuation-in-
`
`part of Appl. No. 13/013,775, filed on January 25, 2011.
`
`22.
`
` In forming the opinions expressed herein, I relied upon my education
`
`and experience in the relevant field of art, and have considered the viewpoint of a
`
`POSITA, as of January 25, 2011. I have also considered:
`
`a)
`
`the documents listed above,
`
`b)
`
`any additional documents and references cited in the
`
`analysis below,
`
`c)
`
`the relevant legal standards, including the standard for
`
`obviousness, and
`
`d) my knowledge and experience based upon my work in
`
`this area as described below.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that patent claims in an IPR are given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in view of the patent specification and the understandings
`
`of a POSITA. I further understand that this is not the same claim construction
`
`standard as one would use in a District Court proceeding.
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`
`24.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law was provided to me by Petitioner’s attorneys.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ‘304 Patent includes patents and
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the ‘304
`
`Patent. For purposes of this Declaration, I have applied the date of January 25,
`
`2011, the filing date of a parent application of which the application leading to the
`
`‘304 Patent was a continuation-in-part, as the priority date.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it would have been obvious.
`
`Obviousness of a claim requires that the claim would have been obvious from the
`
`perspective of a POSITA at the time the alleged invention was made. I understand
`
`that a claim could have been obvious from a single prior art reference or from a
`
`combination of two or more prior art references.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the alleged
`
`invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating the
`
`pertinent art.
`
`28.
`
`I further understand that a claim would have been obvious if it unites
`
`old elements with no change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`mere substitution of one element for another known in the field and that
`
`combination yields predictable results. While it may be helpful to identify a reason
`
`for this combination, I understand that there is no rigid requirement of finding an
`
`express teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine within the references.
`
`When a product is available, design incentives and other market forces can prompt
`
`variations of it, either in the same field or different one. If a POSITA can
`
`implement a predictable variation, obviousness likely bars its patentability. For the
`
`same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device and a POSITA
`
`would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
`
`technique would have been obvious. I understand that a claim would have been
`
`obvious if common sense directs one to combine multiple prior art references or
`
`add missing features to reproduce the alleged invention recited in the claims.
`
`29.
`
`I further understand that certain factors may support or rebut the
`
`obviousness of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include,
`
`among other things, commercial success of the patented invention, skepticism of
`
`those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, unexpected results of
`
`the invention, any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by the
`
`alleged invention, the failure of others to make the alleged invention, praise of the
`
`alleged invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the
`
`alleged invention by others in the field. I understand that there must be a nexus—a
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`connection—between any such secondary considerations and the alleged invention.
`
`I also understand that contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a
`
`secondary consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`30.
`
`I am not aware of any allegations by the named inventors of the ‘304
`
`Patent or any assignee of the ‘304 Patent that any secondary considerations tend to
`
`rebut the obviousness of any Challenged Claim of the ‘304 Patent.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that other challenges to the validity of a patent, including
`
`patent ineligibility, enablement, written description, and definiteness, cannot be
`
`raised in inter partes review proceedings before the Board to challenge the validity
`
`of the ‘304 Patent. Accordingly, I did not consider those other challenges.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability
`
`by a preponderance of evidence, which means that the claims are more likely than
`
`not invalid.
`
`34. The analysis in this declaration is in accordance with the above-stated
`
`legal principles.
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’304 PATENT
`
`35. The ’304 Patent, titled “Content Creation And Distribution System,”
`
`issued on June 11, 2013. The ’304 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`13/185,471 (the “’471 Application”), filed on July 18, 2011, which is a
`
`continuation-in-part of Application No. 13/013,775, filed on January 25, 2011.
`
`36.
`
` The ’304 Patent is directed at creating and sharing web content. For
`
`example, the patent admits that by the time the application was filed, it had
`
`“become relatively easy for individuals and groups of individuals to take digital
`
`photographs and to record video, and to distribute this content to others over the
`
`Internet or other data networks.” (Ex. 1001, 1:17-201.) “Still and video cameras,
`
`which are now common features on mobile phones, can be used to take
`
`photographs and to record videos that are immediately available for sharing with
`
`others through a multi-media messaging service or email, video file sharing sites,
`
`social network and similar services on the Internet that publish (to selected
`
`individuals or groups, or to everyone) or otherwise make available the photographs
`
`and video over the Internet.” (Id., 1:21-28.)
`
`37.
`
`Individuals “distribute their photos and videos by uploading them to
`
`web-based services that publish them for friends, family, social or business
`
`contacts or anyone with access to the Internet to view. When user-generated
`
`
`1 Citations herein to X:Y are to column:line number(s).
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`content is uploaded or shared for a specific purpose, such as for example, in
`
`response to a widely disseminated request for a certain type of content, it may be
`
`referred to as crowd-sourced content.” (Id., 1:31-38.)
`
`38. The patent goes on to explain that “[i]nexpensive computer
`
`application programs allow individuals to edit photographs, videos and other
`
`graphics into a single work with nearly professional results, and to render the
`
`resulting work or ‘content’ in standard formats for playback on a wide range of
`
`devices. Services for sharing user-generated video, photographs, and music abound
`
`on the Internet. For example, a number of video sharing sites allow people to
`
`upload, encode and share videos on the web.” (Id., 1:40-48.)
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN
`THE PERTINENT ART FOR THE ’304 PATENT
`
`39.
`
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill may be reflected by the
`
`prior art of record, and that a POSITA to which the claimed subject matter
`
`pertains would have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering
`
`principles applicable to the pertinent art.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary
`
`creativity, and is not a robot.
`
`41.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the
`
`field; and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems. There are likely a wide
`
`range of educational backgrounds in the technology fields pertinent to the ’304
`
`Patent. The concepts disclosed in the ’304 Patent are relatively simple and would
`
`have been covered by an undergraduate-level course on network architecture,
`
`website design, and/or Internet application design.
`
`42.
`
`I am very familiar with the knowledge and capabilities that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art of content creation and distribution, such as capturing
`
`and transcoding video data, and distributing the content to others via the Internet.
`
`43. Specifically, my experience prior to the relevant timeframe allowed
`
`me to become personally familiar with the knowledge and capabilities of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the area of Internet applications involving various aspects of
`
`creating and sharing multimedia, such as video data. Unless otherwise stated, my
`
`testimony below refers to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in this art as of
`
`January 2011.
`
`44.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art needed to have the
`
`capability of understanding the creation of various types of multimedia
`
`applications, network architecture, and associated distribution methods disclosed
`
`in the ’304 Patent, and would possess (i) a Bachelor’s degree in Computer
`
`Science, Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, or equivalent training, and (ii)
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`approximately two years of experience in network architecture and multimedia
`
`systems, including creating and distributing multimedia. Lack of work experience
`
`can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Such academic and
`
`industry experience would be necessary to appreciate what was obvious and/or
`
`anticipated in the industry and what a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have thought and understood at the time.
`
`45. For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`noted, my testimony below refers to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art during the time period around the earliest claimed priority date of the ’304
`
`Patent. I would have been a person with at least ordinary skill in the art at that
`
`time.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION:
`BROADEST REASONABLE
`INTERPRETATION OF TERMS IN THE ’304 PATENT
`
`46. For purposes of this review, the claim language is “given its broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, 579 U.S. (Jun 20,
`
`2017) (slip. op., at 16-17). Terms not specifically construed below are given their
`
`plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest reasonable interpretation. See id.
`
`47. Because the standard for claim construction at the USPTO is different
`
`than that used in other forums, Petitioner reserves the right to argue in other
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`forums, a different construction for any term, as appropriate to that proceeding. See
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`48. Petitioner proposes the following broadest reasonable interpretations:
`
`A.
`
`“Predetermined constraints”
`
`49. The ’304 Patent specification does not provide an explicit definition
`
`for “predetermined constraints.” However, the specification does provide several
`
`examples of “predetermined constraints,” as well as discussing their purpose. For
`
`example, the specification provides:
`
`“Video content is captured on a user device and formatted according to
`
`predetermined constraints using a web application or an installed
`
`application. The video content, for example, can be requested for
`
`inclusion in a television program. By formatting the video content
`
`according to predetermined constraints, the video content can be
`
`transcoded into a format appropriate for inclusion in a linear television
`
`programming schedule using an automated transcoding workflow
`
`corresponding to the predetermined format to ensure that the
`
`transcoded video file complies with requirements of a particular
`
`television broadcaster or television uplink facility. (Ex. 1001, 9:12-23.)
`
`“When the content creation sub-system is implemented as a thin client
`
`application or a specialized application installed on a user device, the
`
`application can enforce predetermined constraints on the captured
`
`video. Such constraints can help ensure that the video is in condition to
`
`be rapidly transcoded for insertion into a linear programming time slot.
`
`…
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`The client application (i.e., either thin client application or
`
`installed application) can also enforce restrictions on the length
`
`of a video that is captured for submission. For example, if a video
`
`is generated in response to a specific request for video or other
`
`content submissions, users may be directed to a particular web
`
`page associated with the request. By accessing the thin client
`
`through that web page and/or by delivering parameters to a
`
`locally installed application on the user device, a video length
`
`restriction can be enforced (i.e., the user can be prevented from
`
`capturing or submitting videos that do not comply with the length
`
`restrictions). In some implementations, the content creation sub-
`
`system can allow recordings of various durations suitable for
`
`including in time slots of linear programming (e.g., 15 seconds,
`
`30 seconds, etc.). For example, an affinity group may not have
`
`its own television program affiliated with its own private-label
`
`social media website. In such an instance, members of the
`
`affinity group may not have the option to record a 15-second
`
`“famespot” for inclusion in that affinity group’s television
`
`program. They may, however, be given rights to record and
`
`submit a 30-second “peoplemercial” that may be viewed on
`
`various programs within a television programming lineup. Other
`
`predetermined lengths may also be used. By enforcing length
`
`restrictions, the need to edit the video can be avoided, which can
`
`also expedite the process of inserting video into a linear
`
`programming sequence. Users may also be allowed to submit a
`
`video file of unspecified length for inclusion on an Internet video
`
`blog or as part of a linear program, otherwise known as a “social
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`clip.”
`
`(Id., 10:56-11:48.)
`
`50. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the
`
`specification of “predetermined constraints” is “parameters, rules, or restrictions
`
`provided to ensure compliance and compatibility with system requirements or
`
`goals, including but not limited to video length, video format type, video image
`
`resolution, video transmission bit rate, etc.”
`
`B.
`
`“Transcoding”
`
`51. The ’304 Patent uses “transcoding” in its ordinarily understood sense.
`
`For example, THE DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING & DIGITAL MEDIA defines
`
`“transcoding” as “[t]o convert from one video format to another, as opposed to
`
`encoding, which refers to the original capture or digitization of images.” (Ex. 1014,
`
`p. 4.) This definition is consistent with how the ’304 Patent uses the term. For
`
`example, the ’304 Patent provides:
`
`The content distribution sub-system 116 can include encoders
`
`(e.g., for encoding raw data or other uncompressed video format
`
`data into a compressed video format) and/or transcoders (e.g., for
`
`transcoding one compressed video format
`
`into another
`
`compressed video format) 118, storage servers 114 (e.g.,
`
`computer-readable memory) and a review and authorization
`
`interface 134. (Ex. 1001, 10:14-20.)
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`
`
`52. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “transcoding” is
`
`
`
`“converting from one video format to another.”
`
`C.
`
`“Buffered on the client
`computing device using scripts” (cl. 5)
`
`53.
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
