`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`STINGRAY DIGITAL GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MUSIC CHOICE,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 16, 2018
`___________
`
`
`
`
`Before Mitchell G. Weatherly, Gregg I. Anderson, and John F. Horvath,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`VIMAL M. KAPADIA, ESQ
`ALLAN A. KASSENHOFF, ESQ.
`Greenberg Traurig LLP
`MetLife Building
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`ROBERT ASHBROOK, ESQ.
`Dechert LLP
`Cira Centre, 2929 Arch Street
`Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-2808
`215 994 2215
`
`
`
`ROBERT RHOAD, ESQ.
`Dechert LLP
`502 Carnegie Center, Suite #104
`Princeton, New Jersey 08540-7814
`609 955 3269
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, July 16,
`
`2018, commencing at 12:44 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`Madison Building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: This is a hearing for
`IPR2017-01192 relating to U.S. patent 8,769,602, and IPR
`2017-01450 relating to U.S. patent 9,414,121.
` Petitioner is Stingray Digital Group, Inc. and
`patent owner is Music Choice. I'm Judge Weatherly, and I'm
`joined remotely by Judges Anderson and Horvath, who you can
`see on the screen.
` Because the camera, through which Judges Anderson
`and Horvath are viewing the proceedings, is mounted above my
`head, you may wish to turn and look at that camera when
`addressing either of them.
` Please be sure to describe any slides that
` you're discussing by number so that Judges Anderson
` and Horvath can follow along more easily. And also,
` to help the transcript be a little clearer and easier
` for us to -- be a little clearer and easier for us to
` follow.
` Pursuant to your hearing order, each party has
` 45 minutes today to present its arguments. Petitioner
` will proceed first, because it bears the burden of
` proving unpatentability, followed by patent owner.
` Petitioner may reserve solely to rebut patent owner's
` arguments.
` I'm a little curious, though, about whether
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
` the parties have talked about whether they're going to
` present these two cases sort of serially or all at one
` time. I'm -- all three of us on the panel are
` completely open to what the parties' preferences are
` for that.
` Has there been any discussion about that
` between the parties?
` MR. KAPADIA: There have not.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: No? Petitioner, do you have any
`preferences about the order in which the material gets
`presented? Do you want to do like the 1192 and then sit down
`and later do the 1450, or do you want to do it all at once?
` MR. KAPADIA: We have no preference, but that's
`completely acceptable.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: You should have objected to my
`statement as compound. So which is acceptable? You want to
`do both?
` MR. KAPADIA: Yeah, let's just do both.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay. All right. Fantastic.
` MR. ASHBROOK: Your Honor, the patent owner is fine
`with doing the two together, as we did last one.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Sure. Sure.
` So before we begin, I know that we've -- I see a lot
`of familiar faces in the room. You guys remotely hear me
`now? I see Judge Anderson nodding. Judge Horvath, can you
`hear me?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
` JUDGE HORVATH: Yes. Much better. Thank you.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: All right. I thought my mic was
`on, but apparently it wasn't.
` Anyway, I know I see some familiar faces.
` Nevertheless, I think for the record it would be nice
` if each side introduced who they have with them and
` who will be making the presentations today.
` We'll begin with petitioner, just for the
` Introductions.
` MR. KASSENHOFF: Good afternoon, Judge. Allen
`Kassenhoff on behalf of Stingray. I'll be addressing the 121
`patent. With me is Vimal Kapadia who will be addressing the
`602 patent, and Mr. Josh Raskin is here, as well.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Thank you.
` MR. ASHBROOK: Your Honor, I am Robert Ashbrook for
`the patent owner, Music Choice. With me is Bob Rhoad, backup
`counsel. And I'm pleased to have with me Ms. Karen Raybuck
`from Music Choice.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Great. Thanks very much.
` Petitioner, how much time, if any, would you
` like to reserve?
` MR. KAPADIA: We would like 33 minutes for our
`opening, and reserve the remaining 12 minutes for rebuttal.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay.
` MR. KAPADIA: And can we have a courtesy indication
`after the first 18 minutes so we can switch off?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: I can do my best to try to provide
`that.
` MR. KAPADIA: Thank you very much.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Did you say you want to reserve 33
`minutes?
` MR. KAPADIA: 33 minutes for the opening, and the
`first 18 minutes will be for the 602 patent, and the
`remaining 15 minutes will be for the 121.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: So you want to use 33 minutes?
` MR. KAPADIA: Yes.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay. How about if I just -- I'll
`set the timer right now for 18 minutes.
` MR. KAPADIA: That works.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: And that way we can all have a
`courtesy (inaudible) how much time is left for the first
`presentation.
` I'm a little skeptical that we'll be able to
` fit everything into 45 minutes, quite frankly, on each
` side, but I'm hopeful nevertheless.
` So petitioner, whenever you're ready, go
` ahead.
` MR. KAPADIA: Would you like a hard copy of the
`slides?
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Sure. I've got a soft copy, but
`I'll take a hard copy.
` MR. KAPADIA: First set of slides is for the 602,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
`the next set is for the 121.
` MR. ASHBROOK: Your Honor, would the Board prefer a
`hard copy of the patent owner's slides?
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Sure. I'll take one. I've got a
`lot of things up on my screen, and this lets me use my screen
`for the evidence instead of the presentations. Thank you.
` Mr. Kapadia, yes, whenever you're ready.
` MR. KAPADIA: Okay. So in starting with Slide 3,
`petition includes two grounds.
` The first ground relies solely on Mackintosh, and
`that's for Claims 1 through 7, and ground two is an
`obviousness ground that relies on the combination of
`Mackintosh and Hallier, and that's for Claims 8 through 11.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: And I know I'll probably interrupt
`a number of times for this, but because we have two remote
`Judges, make sure that you go ahead and let us know what
`slide you're on. Right now, you're in the 1192, Slide Deck
`3, right?
` MR. KAPADIA: Yes, that is correct.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay.
` MR. KAPADIA: Slide 2 received a face of the 602
`patent. And the 602 patent is directed to the display of --
`what it calls a visual complement for a song.
` And what that means is it displays some sort of
`visual element, such as album art or an advertisement, while
`the song is playing.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
` An example of this is found on Slide 5. Here, we
`see an excerpt from 602 patent, Figure 2, which shows off on
`the left in green a place for album art, a spot for
`advertisements on the bottom, some song recording information
`in the middle, includes the artist name, song name, album
`name, and we even see a "Buy" button to buy the current song
`or a CD. And it's this display of album art and an
`advertisement that would be the visual complement.
` Now, the Mackintosh prior art shows the same
` visual complement. Mackintosh discloses a system
` providing supplemental materials, such as the same
` album art on the left, the same advertisement on the
` bottom, and it even includes the same sound recording
` information in the same order; artist, song, and album
` name. And thus, Mackintosh discloses the same
` invention as the 602.
` Now, patent owner attempts to evade Mackintosh
` by argue -- based on a misread of petition, a misread
` of Mackintosh, and two unduly narrow and erroneous
` claim constructions, which I'll address now.
` With respect to ground one, there are two
` disputes; one is whether Mackintosh discloses a data
` packet, and the second is whether Mackintosh discloses
` a video image specification. I'll address the data
` packet first.
` Now, the claimed data packet in Claim 1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
` requires video image specification and sound recording
` information. And the sound recording information
` really is the song -- the name of the song and the
` name of the artist. And as we just saw in Figure 12,
` Mackintosh discloses the transmission of sound
` recording information, we just saw it on the screen.
` Thus, the parties really dispute whether or not this
` needs to be transmitted in a single packet of
` information -- a single file, a single transfer.
` And patent owner explains in their patent
` owner response that they admit that Mackintosh even
` sends URLs, which we believe constitutes the video
` image specification.
` However, Mackintosh -- however, the 602 patent
` is not limited to a single data packet that includes
` both pieces of information, as we explained in our
` reply. However, even under patent owner's more narrow
` construction where it must be in a single data packet,
` Mackintosh discloses that, and I'd like to address that
` now.
` So if we jump to Slide 18, you see that
` Mackintosh discloses the transmission of a URL provided
` by data server 214. Thus, Mackintosh discloses sending
` URLs from data server 214. And it's used to retrieve
` additional images and additional information from
` another server. That would be supplemental server
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
` 216. So Mackintosh discloses retrieving supplemental
` materials from supplemental server 216 using URLs.
` We see this applied in Figure 7 on Slide 19
` where it shows -- where Mackintosh shows the data window
` 302, which I've highlighted with a red box. And in
` there there is a spot for the album art, a spot for
` the sound recording information, and some additional
` information off to the right.
` And Mackintosh explains that URLs could be used
` to retrieve some or all of this information. Thus,
` URLs could be used to retrieve the album art, and then
` some other means would be used to retrieve the track
` information.
` Now, on Slide 20 we see that this track
` information can come either directly from data server
` 214, which we just previously discussed sends the
` URLs, or it could be coming from supplemental server
` 216, and that would be retrieved via a URL.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Well, you know, I understand -- I
`think the dispute is coming down to the manner in which
`Mackintosh uses URLs and whether the manner in which Mackintosh
`uses them, the various parts of the Mackintosh's system uses
`URLs, is covered by the claim -- the claims at issue.
` So I also understand there to be sort of an
`interesting kind of interplay between two different claim
`interpretations in this case; one revolving around the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
`video image specification, which patent owner argues for a
`narrower interpretation than you do in the sense that patent
`owner asserts that video image specification must include
`screen position information.
` You, in connection with -- and you don't. You don't
`think that it requires position information, that "it" being
`video image specification.
` On the other hand, patent owner, while it
` doesn't expressly interpret the concept or term "data
` packet", you've argued in your reply that, based on
` the way patent owner has read Mackintosh in concert
` with that data packet requirement, the patent owner
` implies a kind of limitation on "data packet" as being
` limited to -- well, hard to put my finger on -- one
` file or one --
` Nevertheless, I understand they took a
` position that was inconsistent with that in the
` District Court. One, that -- in that dispute in the
` District Court.
` If we were to consider your proposal for data
` packet to be more accurately reflecting the meaning of
` that term than patent owner, would we need to resolve
` the dispute about video image specification?
` MR. KAPADIA: And we believe we would not, because
`we believe Mackintosh discloses a single data packet in the
`form of HTML. And HTML would include both URLs, which would
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
`be the video image specification under our construction, as
`well as position information for placing items on the screen.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Well, help me understand. You
`know, maybe it's my kindergarten understanding of URL and
`HTML that just (inaudible). To me, HTML files are data files
`that are transmitted over the internet in a series of
`packets, and they get sent by a server in a bunch of packets.
`Those packets get reassembled on the other side by the
`clients, and into a file, and HTML files can contain
`virtually anything. They can contain URLs, they can contain
`screen location information, all kinds of display information
`about whether a piece of -- an image should be placed
`relatively within a window, or how big it should be, or how
`it should behave when the window is resized, all kinds of
`things.
` But I'm having a little bit of trouble
` following your argument, because it almost seems as
` though you're sort of conflating the concept of URL,
` which I understand to be something that may or may not
` be transmitted, but it's -- instead, it's just a
` string that identifies the servers on the internet, or
` the infrastructure of the internet translate into
` static IP addresses, and that's it.
` I know that it's gotten more sophisticated
` since then. There's a factual dispute about java
` script we may or may not get to and whether java
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
` script invented any URLs position information, but
` what -- help me dis --
` I guess what I'm asking is for you to be a
` little more disciplined about your use of the terms
` "URL" and "HTML", or correct my kindergarten
` understanding so that I can hear you more precisely.
` MR. KAPADIA: I understand your concerns.
` So Mackintosh discloses a -- we jump to Slide 25 --
`Mackintosh discloses a web page type player. And a web page
`is, as we discussed, it's really constructed from an HTML
`file. So Mackintosh discloses the use of an HTML player, and
`Mackintosh discloses a web-based component 526 which includes
`the album art off on the left and the sound recording
`information in the middle. And thus, a person wouldn't --
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: So what I hear you saying is that
`Mackintosh's player is akin to a browser in the sense that it
`can interpret and render HTML on the display.
` MR. KAPADIA: Yes. And, in fact, that's actually
`more explicitly explained on Slide 90. Here, we see that in
`one (inaudible) when the "Buy Now" button is clicked, the
`appropriate or related web pages can be brought up directly
`within data window 302.
` And here, data window 302 --
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Right. But to get back to the
`claims themselves. I mean, the claims require transmitting a
`data packet comprising a video image specification, said data
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
`packet further comprising sound recording information. So
`what exactly is the data packet that you're identifying from
`Mackintosh? Is it the HTML files that one of the machines
`sends to the clients, or something else?
` MR. KAPADIA: It would be the H -- my apologies.
`They would be the HTML files. And that would include both a
`video image specification, because it includes URLs on the
`screen, therefore, retrieving materials such as the album art
`on the screen, and they would additionally include the sound
`recording information which would correspond to tracking for
`a 324.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay. And so the URLs that you're
`talking about in that sentence that you just said, I'm
`guessing are URLs to, for example, to images.
` MR. KAPADIA: Yes.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Like the album art, for example.
`The HTML files will come down embedded, which the HTML files
`may be a URL for the album art that gets displayed on the
`left-hand side of Mackintosh's display.
` MR. KAPADIA: That is correct.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay.
` MR. KAPADIA: And Dr. Shamos explains this in his
`reply in our declaration where he states that, "The HTML
`files would include both URLs, for example the album art, and
`it would also include the sound recording information in the
`text itself of the HTML."
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay. So again, this might be
`based on a misunderstanding of HTML and URL from my
`perspective and a misunderstanding of my -- the URL in an
`HTML file for an image file, for example, may or may not have
`any screen position associated -- information associated with
`it specifically. In other words, if I were to open the HTML
`files and look at the code, the URL itself need not include
`any kind of screen information, it's simply an address from
`where to retrieve the image. However, other lines in the
`code can specify what to do with that file and where to put
`it on the screen. So what's your position in terms of -- is
`the data packet the entire HTML file?
` MR. KAPADIA: Yes.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay.
` MR. KAPADIA: The data packet is the entire HTML
`file.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay.
` MR. KAPADIA: And the portions of the HTML file that
`include the URLs are part of the video image specification
`that's within the HTML file, and the remaining portion of the
`HTML code that positions the various images on the screen
`would also be a part of the video image specification that's
`within the HTML.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay. But it also would be
`possible, wouldn't it, for this player to be designed in such
`a way that it doesn't need to have position information in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
`the HTML file to be able to render things in its display?
` MR. KAPADIA: Well, Mackintosh explains --
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: I mean, it could be some sort of
`local configuration preference, right?
` MR. KAPADIA: I mean, although that might be
`possible, that's not what we believe Mackintosh discloses.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay.
` MR. KAPADIA: Slide 90. Here, we see that Mackintosh
`states that the appropriate web pages may be brought up
`within data window 302, and then Mackintosh explains that
`they -- "they" being the web pages -- can be configured to
`either span the entire area of data window 302 or a subset of
`it.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay.
` MR. KAPADIA: And thus, Mackintosh is disclosing that
`the web pages of -- are actually including the position
`information for placing items on the screen.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: And I'm assuming that you're
`saying that because of what's implied by the term "web
`pages", that web pages are something that exist outside the
`player?
` MR. KAPADIA: In --
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: They could be rendered by a
`browser, they could be rendered by Mackintosh's player?
` MR. KAPADIA: Yeah. I'm going based off of the
`meaning of "web pages". When they're configured, they have
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
`some information as to how certain elements would be put up
`on the screen. And yes, the player might interpret in one
`way, and a browser might have a different rendering engine to
`process it.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay. All right. This statement
`here, Mackintosh, about they can be configured to span --
`"they" being the web pages -- can be configured to span the
`entire area of data window 302, or alternatively to be a
`subset thereof, is it -- "can be configured" is a passive
`voice that attorneys love to use in (inaudible) and things.
` Is it the player that does the configuring, is it
`the information within the web page itself that causes the --
`the page to be rendered a specific way, or is it -- could it
`be either?
` MR. KAPADIA: Well, when Dr. Shamos was explaining
`during his deposition that they -- they -- that "they" being
`the web pages -- can be configured, meaning it's the web
`pages that would have the position information because the
`web pages are designed ahead of time.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: I guess configured by what, is my
`question? And the missing subject in that passage -- use of
`(inaudible) can be configured by what? By -- by the HTML
`files, or by the player, or is it either?
` MR. KAPADIA: And we would argue that it's based
`on -- on the HTML file itself, because the HTML file is
`configured ahead of time. It's created ahead of time, and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
`it's rendered by a web browser, it's rendered by a player.
` Now, the player may have some additional location
`information that it might import onto the web -- web page, so
`it might take up the entire screen or it might be resized to
`include only a subset of the screen, but the web page itself
`must include some sort of position information to lay out the
`various items on the screen.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay. I have some questions. We
`haven't gotten to it yet, but -- and if you prefer not to --
`prefer to spend -- you've got only about a minute and a half
`left -- this concept of java script being in the URL and java
`script of a type that would have a kind of screen location
`information embedded within it.
` I didn't really see any kind of description in
`Mackintosh or in the patent at issue, frankly, about using
`java script in that way, and I don't really have an
`understanding of when that capability was developed for java
`script.
` So does it matter when that capability was -- first
`of all, does it matter whether the capability existed at the
`time of the invention in the early 2000s or -- well, does it
`matter?
` MR. KAPADIA: I mean, it -- we believe that it was
`capable at that time period. Dr. Shamos testified as much in
`his declaration.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: That it was available at the time
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
`of the invention?
` MR. KAPADIA: Yes.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay. I may have missed that.
`Because then my next follow-up question was, where is the
`evidence that supports a finding that it was available at a
`certain time? And I'm getting Shamos' reply declaration.
` MR. KAPADIA: This would be in his reply
`declaration.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay.
` MR. KAPADIA: And even in addition to that, this
`position information could also be included in the URL by
`simply including position at the end of the URL. This can be
`seen on Slide 57. Here, we see --
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: No, I understand that. That's --
`there's no description that that's specifically in Mackintosh,
`though, correct?
` MR. KAPADIA: That's correct.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Yeah. So that's a kind of a --
`seems to me to be a little bit of speculation by Dr. Ramos --
`or Shamos, quite frankly. And that -- my understanding is
`that that would require some sort of configuration at the
`client end to be able to interpret what does position one
`mean, or on the server end, I suppose.
` MR. KAPADIA: That would be true. But under the
`patent owner's construction for video image specification,
`that would be sufficient for being position information.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay. Fair enough. Fair enough.
` We're right at the 18-minute mark. You're free to
`continue if you'd like.
` MR. KAPADIA: Just one other -- just one point with
`respect to --
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Sure.
` MR. KAPADIA: -- to ground two, and then I'll give
`the rest of my time to my colleague.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Sure. Sure.
` MR. KAPADIA: Going to Slide 59.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay.
` MR. KAPADIA: Now, for ground two, there's one
`dispute, that's whether a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would be motivated to combine Mackintosh and Hallier. And it's
`undisputed that Mackintosh discloses a problem at server --
`data server 214. And it's undisputed that the proposed
`combination would eliminate the overload at 214. Because in
`the proposed combination, user terminals 212 would no longer
`be accessing data server 214. Instead, patent owner argues
`that somehow this combination relied on hindsight to create,
`and that's not true.
` Here, we have Mackintosh disclosed a problem. The
`problem was there's a potential for overload at data server
`214. And Hallier provides a solution for that. Hallier
`provides a means for transmitting images, videos, and other
`data along with a radio broadcast. And Mackintosh discloses
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
`the use of a radio broadcast from radio station 204 to ISP
`208.
` So Hallier provides a solution for this overload by
`allowing radio station 204 to access the supplemental
`material from 214, and transmitting it to the user
`terminal through the ISP.
` And now a person of ordinary skill in the art
`looking at Hallier and looking at the problem that's disclosed
`in Mackintosh might solve this problem in multiple ways.
` One way was provided with respect to the 025
`petition, another way was provided with respect to the 602
`patent. But the mere fact that there were two solutions
`given, two prior art references, doesn't mean that there was
`hindsight required.
` Now, to be complete, we could have included both
`solutions in both petitions and then provided an analysis for
`only the relevant one, but we chose to include just the
`relevant combination for each of the relative petitions.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Judges Anderson and Horvath, do
`you have any questions before Mr. Kapadia sits down?
` JUDGE HORVATH: No questions for me.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay. I have Mr. Kapadia going
`over by about three minutes, so Mr. Kassenhoff, would you like
`to trim your time, or continue just (inaudible) 15 minutes,
`or --
` MR. KASSENHOFF: I'll shoot for 13 minutes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: 13. Okay. Hang on one second.
`I'm going to try to reconfigure this --
` (Pause in the proceedings)
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay. Whenever you're ready.
` MR. KASSENHOFF: Thank you, Judge.
` I'm here to address the 121 patent, and there are
`two different grounds for the challenged claims.
` One, Claims 1 and 6 are anticipated by the Dunn
`reference, the second ground are dependent Claims 10 and 12
`are rendered obvious by Dunn in combination McElhatten with the
`McElhatten reference.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: And we've switched, for Judges
`Horvath and Anderson -- we've switched to your other slide.
` MR. KASSENHOFF: Yes. It's the second slide for the
`121 patent.
` JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay.
` MR. KASSENHOFF: And we're now on Slide 3 of the
`stack. And patent owner doesn't dispute the presence of any
`of the limitations of any of the challenged claims except for
`what we've referred to as the streaming terms. It's the
`stream of audio and video data. Sometimes it's where the
`claim limitation is just of the stream of audio data,
`sometimes it's the video data, sometimes it's both. And the
`sole dispute is whether or not that stream of data must be
`digital, as the patent owner suggests, or can it be analog or
`digital, as the petitioner suggests?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01192, Patent 8,769,602
`Case IPR2017-01450, Patent 9,414,121
`
` And Slide 4 summarizes the only issue in
` dispute, do the streaming terms require digital
` content, as suggested by the patent owner.
` We're now on Slide 5. The intrinsic evidence
` of the 121 patent clearly provides that the data does
` not need to be digital. Where is that found? Two
` places, Judge -- Judges.
` First, the 121 patent is a continuation in
` part and incorporates by reference the 722 patent.
` 722 patent is directed to a personalized audio
` channel. And what does it say in the 722? This is on
` Claim 6. It's discussing the receiver that could be
` used to receive this -- this personalized audio
` channel, and it says here, "Receiver 210 can be any
` device that can receive a data stream, the same type
` of language data stream," and the 722 gives examples
` of this receiver.
` For example, in the fourth line down, it
` expressly says, "One example of the receiver is a
` cable TV receiver for receiving signals transmitted
` through an analog or a
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
