`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CUSTOMPLAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Patent 9,124,950
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ALAN C. BOVIK IN SUPPORT OF
`AMAZON’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Amazon Ex. 1102
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`IPR2018-01497
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`CLAIMS 2, 4, 6, 14, 16, AND 19 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS TO A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL -------------------------- 2
`A. Overview of the Petition ---------------------------------------------------- 2
`B.
`Claims 6 and 19 Would Have Been Obvious in View of
`Rangan ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
`1.
`Rangan Discloses Retrieving a Video Frame
`Identifier Responsive to a Play Location -------------------------- 3
`a.
`Rangan’s Thumbnail Images Are Video Frame
`Identifiers ------------------------------------------------------ 3
`Rangan Discloses “Retrieving” a Video Frame
`Identifier ------------------------------------------------------- 6
`Rangan’s Keyframe Thumbnails Are
`Responsive to a Play Location ------------------------------ 9
`Rangan Discloses Displaying an Indication That
`Information Is Available ------------------------------------------- 13
`Rangan Discloses Retrieving a Subsequent Video
`Frame Identifier and Displaying a Subsequent
`Indication That Information Is Available ------------------------ 16
`Claims 2, 14, and 16 Would Have Been Obvious in View of
`Rangan and Rakib ----------------------------------------------------------- 16
`1.
`Rangan Discloses Receiving a Request for
`Additional Information --------------------------------------------- 17
`Combining Rangan and Rakib ------------------------------------- 19
`2.
`Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious in View of Rangan,
`Rakib, and Abecassis ------------------------------------------------------- 23
`1.
`Rangan Discloses Resuming Playing at a Beginning
`of a Video Clip ------------------------------------------------------- 23
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Abecassis Discloses Resuming at a Beginning of a
`Video Clip ------------------------------------------------------------ 26
`Claims 2, 6, 14, 16, and 19 Would Have Been Obvious in
`View of Armstrong and Livesey ------------------------------------------ 27
`1.
`Armstrong Discloses Retrieving Video Frame
`Identifiers ------------------------------------------------------------- 27
`Armstrong Discloses Displaying an Initial Indication ---------- 32
`Armstrong Discloses Displaying a Subsequent
`Indication ------------------------------------------------------------- 32
`Livesey Discloses Displaying Contemporaneous
`Indications ------------------------------------------------------------ 34
`Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious in View of Armstrong,
`Livesey, and Abecassis ----------------------------------------------------- 37
`Claims 2, 4, 6, 14, 16, and 19 Would Have Been Obvious in
`View of Rakib and Livesey ------------------------------------------------ 37
`1.
`Pausing ---------------------------------------------------------------- 40
`2.
`Resuming ------------------------------------------------------------- 41
`CONCLUSION --------------------------------------------------------------------- 42
`
`2.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`I, Alan C. Bovik, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I considered the Declaration of Clifford
`
`Reader (Ex. 2021), the exhibits cited therein, and all other references identified
`
`herein.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that my prior declaration was submitted as Exhibit 1002,
`
`and I refer to certain portions of that declaration herein. I remain unaware of any
`
`evidence that would suggest that the claims of the ’950 patent would not have been
`
`obvious.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that Dr. Reader has applied a slightly different definition
`
`than I have for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2021 ¶51. While I disagree
`
`with Dr. Reader as to that definition, my opinions would not change under his def-
`
`inition.
`
`4.
`
`In this Declaration, I provide opinions and enumerate ways in which I
`
`disagree with Dr. Reader and his opinions as stated in his Declaration (Ex. 2021).
`
`However, this Declaration does not enumerate all ways in which I disagree with
`
`Dr. Reader, and the fact that I do not address some of Dr. Reader’s statements
`
`should not be taken to mean that I agree with them.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`I. CLAIMS 2, 4, 6, 14, 16, AND 19 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`TO A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A. Overview of the Petition
`
`5.
`
`In ¶¶69-70, Dr. Reader makes broad criticisms of alleged failings of
`
`the prior art references and combinations thereof. Dr. Reader fails to identify any
`
`specific prior art references or any specific failings with respect to those references
`
`(or combinations thereof). To the extent Dr. Reader’s declaration makes state-
`
`ments about specific prior art references (or combinations thereof), I address those
`
`statements in the paragraphs below.
`
`B. Claims 6 and 19 Would Have Been Obvious in View of Rangan
`
`6.
`
`In ¶¶71-72, Dr. Reader states that “claims 6 and 19 of the ’950 patent
`
`are not rendered unpatentable by Rangan alone or in combination with the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA” because “Rangan specifically fails to disclose, teach or
`
`suggest, all of the limitations recited in claim 6.” Dr. Reader then identifies the
`
`“retrieving” and “displaying” limitations as the limitations he states Rangan fails to
`
`disclose. Ex. 2021 ¶¶73-90. To the extent that Dr. Reader suggests that Rangan
`
`fails to disclose those limitations, I disagree for the reasons set forth in my prior
`
`declaration (Ex. 1002 ¶¶47-60) and for the additional reasons stated in ¶¶7-31 be-
`
`low.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`1.
`Rangan Discloses Retrieving a Video Frame Identifier
`Responsive to a Play Location
`
`7.
`
`In ¶73, Dr. Reader states that “Rangan fails to teach, suggest, or dis-
`
`close” the “retrieving” limitation. I disagree for the reasons enumerated below in
`
`¶¶8-26.
`
`8.
`
`In ¶73, Dr. Reader also states that “[r]etrieval is an active verb, not a
`
`passive verb and Petitioner’s interpretation of Rangan ignores this distinction.”
`
`My understanding is that “retrieval” is a noun, not a verb and the claims do not re-
`
`cite “retrieval.” Regardless, my opinion of Rangan’s disclosure does not change
`
`based on Dr. Reader’s assertion regarding the grammatical use of “retrieval” (or
`
`“retrieve” using any suffix) in the claims.
`
`a.
`
`Rangan’s Thumbnail Images Are Video Frame
`Identifiers
`
`9.
`
`In ¶74, Dr. Reader states that Rangan does not support “Petitioner’s
`
`statement that ‘[e]ach thumbnail image constitutes a video frame identifier because
`
`it is information that identifies a single frame, e.g., the first frame in each sce-
`
`ne’[.]” To the extent Dr. Reader contends that Rangan’s thumbnails are not video
`
`frame identifiers because they do not identify a single frame (e.g., the first frame in
`
`each scene), I disagree. Dr. Reader states in ¶78 that Rangan retrieves “a first vid-
`
`eo frame image for generation of a keyframe thumbnail image.” Moreover,
`
`Rangan explicitly states that the thumbnail images are created from the first frame
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`in each scene. Ex. 1014, 29:8-10 (“A detected scene change is represented by a
`
`keyframe (thumbnail image), which is a reduced image of the first frame in the
`
`scene”). Rangan’s system uses the thumbnails (and/or associated frame numbers
`
`or time stamps) to identify a specific frame in the video from which the thumbnail
`
`was generated (e.g., the first frame in the scene). For example, Rangan discloses
`
`that the system identifies the frame associated with the keyframe thumbnail when
`
`it initiates playback or recording from the associated frame. Ex. 1014, 9:15-20,
`
`30:7-27. Accordingly, Rangan’s thumbnail images each identify a single video
`
`frame and are thus video frame identifiers. Ex. 1002 ¶¶47-52.
`
`10.
`
`In ¶75, Dr. Reader states that Rangan’s thumbnail images do not con-
`
`stitute video frame identifiers because “where two are more of Rangan’s generated
`
`thumbnail images are identical to one another, the corresponding ‘information’
`
`contained in those generated thumbnail images fails to identify a video frame iden-
`
`tifier.” I disagree. As discussed in the paragraph immediately above, because
`
`Rangan’s thumbnails are generated from the first frame of each scene and only one
`
`“first frame” exists for each scene, Rangan’s thumbnail images identify single,
`
`unique frames.
`
`11. Dr. Reader’s statement is also incorrect because the claims of the ’950
`
`patent do not require that video frame identifiers have different content, only that
`
`they be “responsive to a play location within a playing of a video.” Ex. 1001,
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`claim 6; see id., 13:63-14:12 (disclosing that video frame identifiers identify a lo-
`
`cation within the video). As discussed above in ¶¶9-10, Rangan’s thumbnails do
`
`precisely that. Even if their content were the same, they would still identify, and
`
`be responsive to, distinct play locations (e.g., first frame of a scene).
`
`12.
`
`In ¶76, Dr. Reader reiterates his opinion that “Rangan’s generated
`
`thumbnail images (keyframes) are not equivalent to the claimed ‘video frame iden-
`
`tifier[’]” and that “Rangan fails to disclose, teach or suggest the claimed” retriev-
`
`ing limitation. As discussed in ¶¶9-11 above, I disagree. See also Ex. 1002 ¶¶47-
`
`52.
`
`13.
`
`In ¶77, Dr. Reader states that Rangan’s “representative scenes do not
`
`have to be the first frame of any scene.” It is unclear what Dr. Reader means by
`
`his statement, but to the extent he is indicating that Rangan’s keyframes are not the
`
`first frame of the scene, I disagree. Rangan states that “representative scenes” are
`
`displayed (Ex. 1014, 9:12-15) using keyframes created from the first frame of
`
`those representative scenes. Id., 29:60-64. Rangan repeatedly discloses that the
`
`keyframe is created from the first frame of a scene. Id., 29:8-10 (“A detected sce-
`
`ne change is represented by a keyframe (thumbnail image), which is a reduced im-
`
`age of the first frame in the scene.”), 29:60-64 (“A keyframe for the scene is gen-
`
`erated by mathematically reducing its first frame.”), 31:40-45 (“A new scene is
`
`represented by the reduced, thumbnail-size, image of its first frame.”), claim 14.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`Regardless, whether Rangan uses the first frame, the last frame, or any other frame
`
`in the scene is irrelevant because any keyframe (or frame number) still identifies a
`
`video frame and would thus be understood by the skilled artisan to be a video
`
`frame identifier.
`
`b.
`
`Rangan Discloses “Retrieving” a Video Frame
`Identifier
`
`14. Also in ¶77, Dr. Reader states that “Rangan’s disclosure of the
`
`‘canned’ video and the manual detection of scenes, as well as Rangan’s scene
`
`change boundary markers, fail to actually incorporate Rangan’s system.” It is un-
`
`clear what Dr. Reader means when he says that Rangan’s disclosure “fail[s] to ac-
`
`tually incorporate Rangan’s system.” However, to the extent Dr. Reader argues
`
`that Rangan’s disclosure of how scenes are detected somehow precludes the re-
`
`trieval of a video frame identifier, I disagree. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood that the portions of Rangan referred to by Dr. Reader (e.g.,
`
`the portions discussing “‘canned’ video and the manual detection of scenes, as well
`
`as Rangan’s scene change boundary markers”) discuss how scene changes are de-
`
`tected, not which frames are used to represent scenes. Ex. 1014, 14:15-18. Re-
`
`gardless of how the scene change is detected, Rangan discloses that the keyframe
`
`is generated from the first frame of a scene (e.g., the first frame after the scene
`
`change is detected). As discussed in ¶¶16-17 below, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have understood that the generation, retrieval, and display of this
`-6-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`keyframe constitutes retrieving a video frame identifier. See also Ex. 1002 ¶¶47-
`
`52. And, regardless of how the keyframe is generated, it still identifies a video
`
`frame and is therefore a video frame identifier.
`
`15. Finally, in ¶77 Dr. Reader states that Rangan “fail[s] to make any kind
`
`of determination of what is included in the scene.” As I explained above in ¶11,
`
`the claims of the ’950 patent do not require that video frame identifiers have par-
`
`ticular content, only that they be “responsive to a play location within a playing of
`
`a video.” Ex. 1001, claim 6; see id., 13:63-14:12 (disclosing that video frame iden-
`
`tifiers identify a location within the video). As discussed above in ¶¶9-11,
`
`Rangan’s disclosure provides precisely that. See also Ex. 1002 ¶¶47-52. Whether
`
`or not Rangan determines what is included in a scene is not relevant. Moreover,
`
`Rangan does make a “determination of what is included in the scene” when it pro-
`
`vides hotspots linking to additional information regarding the contents of the sce-
`
`ne. See id. ¶¶53-55, 57-60, 63-65.
`
`16.
`
`In ¶78, Dr. Reader concedes that Rangan disclosed “retrieving” a vid-
`
`eo frame identifier but states that Rangan’s retrieval of a video frame identifier “is
`
`not the functional equivalent of” the claimed retrieving function. I disagree. Dr.
`
`Reader fails to identify what he perceives as the difference between Rangan and
`
`the claims of the ’950 patent. Accordingly, I do not know what Dr. Reader’s opin-
`
`ion is based on. However, the ’950 patent does not require the retrieving function
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`to be performed in any particular manner. In fact, the specification of the ’950 pa-
`
`tent provides that “retrieve” should be construed broadly to include “obtain, ac-
`
`quire, procure, download, transfer, extract, and to come into possession by any
`
`means or methodology.” Ex. 1001, 15:4-8. Dr. Reader notes that Rangan disclos-
`
`es that the thumbnail images are “generated” (Ex. 2021 ¶¶75-76, 78), but he never
`
`explains why “generating” does not constitute “obtaining” (and thus “retrieving”)
`
`the thumbnail. Likewise, Rangan’s thumbnail is “a reduced image” of a frame.
`
`Ex. 1014, 29:8-10. Dr. Reader never explains why such a “reduced image” is not
`
`“extracted,” and therefore “retrieved.” Nor does Dr. Reader explain why generat-
`
`ing thumbnails or reducing images are not methods of “com[ing] into posses-
`
`sion”—and therefore “retrieving”—the thumbnail image. Ex. 1001, 15:4-8.
`
`Moreover, each of these is an “active” step, as Dr. Reader proposes is required by
`
`the “retrieving” limitation.
`
`17.
`
`In ¶79, Dr. Reader states that “Petitioner fails to establish that a
`
`POSITA would have understood [that] . . . Rangan’s operation on the display of
`
`thumbnail images that are ‘cached in a digital data cache’” would have performed
`
`the “retrieving” limitations. To the extent Dr. Reader suggests that Rangan’s
`
`thumbnail images are not retrieved because they are cached, I disagree. Dr. Reader
`
`states in ¶79 that Rangan displays the thumbnails. But Dr. Reader never explains
`
`how displaying the thumbnails is possible without the thumbnails being “retrieved”
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`from storage. In order to display an image, it necessarily must be retrieved from
`
`wherever the image is stored (e.g., the data cache). And Rangan explicitly refers to
`
`this process as “obtaining” the keyframe thumbnails. Ex. 1014, 34:67-68. Be-
`
`cause Rangan also discloses that the cache contains multiple keyframes (id., 17:44-
`
`54, 16:30-36), it discloses that the video frame identifiers (keyframes) are retrieved
`
`from a plurality of video frame identifiers (multiple keyframes in the data cache).
`
`c.
`
`Rangan’s Keyframe Thumbnails Are Responsive to a
`Play Location
`
`18.
`
`In ¶80, Dr. Reader states that the Petition fails to convey “that
`
`Rangan’s keyframes are ‘responsive to’ anything other than scene changes” be-
`
`cause “Rangan’s keyframes are automatically generated by ‘detecting scene
`
`changes’ in the video.” To the extent Dr. Reader is arguing Rangan’s keyframes
`
`are not responsive to a play location, I disagree. Rangan discloses that each
`
`keyframe thumbnail is generated based on, and is responsive to, the first frame of a
`
`scene. Ex. 1014, 29:60-64. Each keyframe is therefore responsive to a scene gen-
`
`erally and a scene’s first frame specifically. Both the scene and the scene’s first
`
`frame are play locations within the playing of a video. Moreover, as Dr. Reader
`
`stated, Rangan’s keyframes are responsive to scene changes. Id., 9:12-15, 9:51-53.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have understood that scene changes
`
`occur at, and are, play locations within the playing of a video. Thus, each
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`keyframe is responsive to the play location associated with a scene change or first
`
`frame.
`
`19.
`
`In ¶81, Dr. Reader states that “Rangan’s system admits that thumb-
`
`nail/keyframes are not responsive to a play location within a playing of a video”
`
`because “an integral part of Rangan’s system” is the data cache “where Rangan’s
`
`thumbnail images are sourced.” As discussed in above in ¶18, I disagree with Dr.
`
`Reader’s conclusion that Rangan’s system is not responsive to a play location. A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the storage location
`
`(e.g., cache) of Rangan’s thumbnails is irrelevant to whether they are responsive to
`
`a play location within a playing of a video. Storing keyframes or thumbnails in
`
`cache, a form of memory, does not make them any less responsive to a play loca-
`
`tion. In fact, a person of ordinary skill would have understood that the keyframes
`
`or thumbnails would necessarily have to be stored in some form of memory in or-
`
`der to be accessed and used by Rangan’s system.
`
`20.
`
`In ¶¶82-83, Dr. Reader states that Rangan requires discarding scenes
`
`from the data cache in order to allow “entry of new thumbnails in the storyboard in
`
`‘a first-displayed, first-discarded scheme’” and that “Rangan is only enabled to re-
`
`trieve keyframes from a preset threshold number of already-viewed scenes from
`
`the data cache[.]” Whether the keyframes are deleted from the cache to make way
`
`for new frames is irrelevant to whether Rangan discloses the claimed limitation.
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`The claims do not require that the video frame identifiers be stored for any length
`
`of time after the display. Accordingly, it is irrelevant whether the keyframes are
`
`ultimately discarded as new keyframes are retrieved.
`
`21.
`
`In ¶83, Dr. Reader concludes that the keyframes “are not responsive
`
`to a play location because the cached scenes are previously viewed scenes.” I dis-
`
`agree. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the claim
`
`requires only that the keyframes be responsive to “a play location,” not the current
`
`play location. E.g., Ex. 1001, claim 6 (emphasis added). Such a person would
`
`have understood that keyframes corresponding to previously viewed scenes still
`
`correspond to the first frames of those scenes, which are play locations in the video
`
`and therefore satisfy the claim limitation.
`
`22.
`
`In any event, Rangan discloses that the currently playing scene’s
`
`keyframe is included in the data cache because it discloses that “[w]hen a new sce-
`
`ne is detected, [its keyframe] enters the lowest corner” of the thumbnail story-
`
`board. Ex. 1014, 14:35-44. Accordingly, the keyframe of at least the current scene
`
`(which is responsive to the current play location) is located in and retrieved from
`
`the data cache, just as the keyframes from already-viewed scenes are located in and
`
`retrieved from the data cache.
`
`23.
`
`In ¶84, Dr. Reader states that “[d]ue to Rangan’s requisite data cache
`
`feature, a POSITA would not have been motivated to modify Rangan to arrive at
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`the claimed ‘video frame identifier that is responsive to a play location within a
`
`playing of a video.’” This is incorrect. No modification of Rangan would be nec-
`
`essary because Rangan already discloses the limitation. As I discussed in my prior
`
`declaration, Rangan discloses keyframes or thumbnails that are video frame identi-
`
`fiers that are responsive to a play location. Ex. 1002 ¶¶48-50. Rangan also dis-
`
`closes identifying frames using, for example, frame numbers. Id. ¶51; Ex. 1014,
`
`14:45-63 (frame number used to identify location), 30:15-36 (“the decoder pro-
`
`vides the current video frame number” to identify where to begin recording). A
`
`person of ordinary skill would have understood that Rangan’s system references
`
`the frame number to create the keyframe thumbnail and to access that frame, and
`
`that the frame number is thus a video frame identifier. Even if this was not dis-
`
`closed or suggested by Rangan, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill to modify Rangan to do so because identifying frames by frame number was
`
`well-known in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶52; Ex. 1021, Fig. 2A; Ex. 1013
`
`¶[0076].
`
`24.
`
`In ¶85, Dr. Reader states that “Petitioner fails to address that the re-
`
`trieving of a video frame identifier is responsive to a play location within a playing
`
`of a video. Indeed, nothing in the Petition establishes that Rangan’s keyframes are
`
`‘responsive to’ anything other than scene changes.” To the extent Dr. Reader is
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`arguing Rangan’s keyframes are not responsive to a play location, I disagree for
`
`the reasons I have stated above in ¶18.
`
`25.
`
`In ¶86, Dr. Reader states that “a POSITA could understand that
`
`Rangan does not have to determine and retrieve the first frame of any scene[.]” I
`
`disagree. As discussed above in ¶14, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood that, as Rangan explicitly discloses, the first frame of each scene
`
`is retrieved in order to generate and display the keyframe. Moreover, as discussed
`
`in ¶13, the specific frame of each scene used to generate the keyframe is irrelevant.
`
`26.
`
`In ¶86, Dr. Reader also states that “Rangan states that the selected im-
`
`age is ‘representative’ and not ‘first.” I disagree. Dr. Reader conflates scenes with
`
`frames. Rangan states that “representative scenes” are displayed (.Ex. 1014, 9:12-
`
`15) (emphasis added) using keyframes created from the first frame of those repre-
`
`sentative scenes. Id., 29:60-64. Nevertheless, even if Dr. Reader is correct that
`
`Rangan’s keyframe image is “‘representative’ and not ‘first,’” the keyframe is still
`
`responsive to a play location (e.g., the scene generally and the frame that became
`
`the keyframe image specifically).
`
`2.
`
`Rangan Discloses Displaying an Indication That
`Information Is Available
`
`27.
`
`In ¶¶87-88, Dr. Reader states that, in order for Rangan’s hotspot to be
`
`“responsive to the play location (e.g., frame),” the hotspot must “be responsive to
`
`frame identifiers.” Dr. Reader then states that this “conflicts with Petitioner’s ear-
`-13-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`lier assertion that hotspots are responsive to a frame.” I disagree with Dr. Reader’s
`
`understanding of the claim. A person of ordinary skill would have understood that
`
`the claim requires that the indication be responsive to the video frame identifier,
`
`whereas the information that is indicated to be available is responsive to the play
`
`location. Ex. 1001, claim 6. Rangan discloses that hotspots are “painted over their
`
`corresponding video frames,” Ex. 1014, 29:15-16, and are a visual representation
`
`that there are links to additional information associated with an object on the
`
`frame. Id., 19:28-45 (“The user can click on these hotspots as the video is playing
`
`and jump to another video, or hypervideo, or web page, or even initiate a web
`
`based transaction—all depending on the hot links associated with that object.”),
`
`25:57-26:2 (“These annotations can beneficially serve to impart additional, sup-
`
`plemental, information about the scene and/or the objects in it and/or the
`
`hotspot[.]”), 27:4-6. Accordingly, Rangan’s hotspots (indications) are specific to,
`
`and responsive to, individual keyframe thumbnails (video frame identifiers). Id.,
`
`29:15-16. The indication (hotspot) signals that information is available (via a hy-
`
`perlink) that is responsive to the play location (the frame/scene represented by the
`
`keyframe). Id., 19:28-45, 25:57-26:2, 27:4-6. Thus Rangan discloses this limita-
`
`tion and there is no conflict.
`
`28. However, even if the initial indication, rather than the information,
`
`must be responsive to the play location, Rangan would still disclose the limitation.
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`Because Rangan’s video frame identifier (keyframe) identifies an individual frame
`
`and the scene associated with it, the keyframe identifies a play location. Thus,
`
`Rangan’s indications (hotspots) are responsive to both a video frame identifier
`
`(keyframe or frame number) and a play location (frame/scene associated with the
`
`keyframe or frame number).
`
`29.
`
`I understand that Patent Owner additionally argues that “Rangan does
`
`not disclose an initial indication” because, according to Patent Owner, Rangan’s
`
`hotspot cannot be an “indication information is available” if the remaining portion
`
`of the keyframe thumbnail is the “video frame identifier.” Dr. Reader does not of-
`
`fer an opinion on this limitation. I disagree with Patent Owner’s conclusion.
`
`Rangan’s hotspot is a distinct grid, coloration, or some other visually perceptible
`
`clue that can be “overla[id]” on a video frame or thumbnail. Ex. 1014, 15:27-60,
`
`9:64-10:9, Fig. 4. Indeed, Rangan’s indications are the same the ’950 patent’s:
`
`Rangan (Ex. 1014, Fig. 4)
`
`’950 Patent (Ex. 1001, Fig. 1B)
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`See also Ex. 1001, 7:38-48 (describing the indication as “an outline 141 … [or] an
`
`area of increased brightness”). Rangan describes displaying the same “indication”
`
`on the thumbnail images. Ex. 1002 ¶54.
`
`3.
`
`Rangan Discloses Retrieving a Subsequent Video Frame
`Identifier and Displaying a Subsequent Indication That
`Information Is Available
`
`30.
`
`In ¶¶89-90, Dr. Reader states that Rangan “fails to disclose, teach or
`
`suggest” retrieving a subsequent video frame identifier and displaying a subse-
`
`quent indication for the same reasons he relies on regarding the first video frame
`
`identifier and initial indication. I disagree from the same reasons I have stated
`
`above in ¶¶7-29 regarding the first video frame identifier and initial indication.
`
`31.
`
`In ¶91, Dr. Reader states that his opinions regarding Rangan and its
`
`application to claim 6 apply also to claim 19. I disagree with Dr. Reader’s opin-
`
`ions as applied to claim 19 for the reasons discussed above.
`
`C. Claims 2, 14, and 16 Would Have Been Obvious in View of
`Rangan and Rakib
`
`32.
`
`In ¶93, Dr. Reader states that “claims 2, 14, and 16 of the ‘950 patent
`
`are not rendered unpatentable by Rangan and Rakib” and that “Rakib does not
`
`remedy the deficiencies” of Rangan. Dr. Reader fails to provide any analysis of
`
`these claims and accordingly I do not know what Dr. Reader’s opinion is based on.
`
`To the extent this statement is based on Dr. Reader’s other statements in his decla-
`
`ration, I disagree for the reasons discussed herein.
`-16-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`33.
`In ¶93, Dr. Reader also states that “the proposed modification of
`
`Rangan based on Rakib would require a change in the operating principle of
`
`Rangan.” As discussed in ¶¶39-41 below, I disagree.
`
`1.
`
`Rangan Discloses Receiving a Request for Additional
`Information
`
`34.
`
`In ¶94, Dr. Reader states that “Rangan fails [to disclose this limita-
`
`tion] for the same reasons discussed above. Indeed, here to [sic] Petitioner relies
`
`on Rangan’s hotspots against a completely different limitation.” To the extent Dr.
`
`Reader is arguing that I relied on the same structure (hotspots) as disclosing two
`
`separate claim elements, I disagree. I also disagree that Rangan fails to disclose
`
`receiving a request for additional information.
`
`35. Rangan discloses receiving a request for additional information in at
`
`least three independent ways, none of which require the hotspot to disclose two
`
`separate claim elements. First, Rangan discloses that the indication (in this case,
`
`the hotspot disclosed by Rangan) may be annotated and that those annotations may
`
`include a URL. Ex. 1014, 13:64-14:7 (“[W]hen playing hypervideos the video-on-
`
`web VCR displays a text annotation . . . commonly, however, the annotation is, or
`
`includes, a Universal Resource Locator, or URL.”). The annotations appear upon a
`
`“mouse over” and the URL is activated when the user clicks on the hotspot. Id.
`
`Thus, Rangan discloses displaying indications (hotspots) associated with multiple
`
`play locations, receiving a request (a mouse over) responsive to the indication, dis-
`-17-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`playing information (an annotation containing a URL) associated with the initial
`
`indication (hotspot), receiving a request for additional information (a user’s click
`
`on a displayed URL), and displaying additional information (another video, web
`
`page or image). This disclosure does not rely on Rangan’s hotspots against multi-
`
`ple claim limitations, contrary to Dr. Reader’s statement.
`
`36. Second, Rangan discloses including a first hyperlink in a first video
`
`that directs a user to a second video that contains a second hyperlink. E.g., id.,
`
`11:64-66 (“[t]he inserted hyperlinks will . . . serve to access still further, other, dig-
`
`ital (hyper)video clips, particularly commercials.”), 14:52-64 (the user may contin-
`
`ue “the process of clicking on objects within successive videos”), 10:40-44 (the us-
`
`er “may indulge himself or herself to follow all hyperlinks” to “any network place
`
`or resource that is desired”). Thus, Rangan discloses displaying indications
`
`(hotspots) associated with multiple play locations, receiving a request (a user’s
`
`click on a hyperlink) responsive to the indication, displaying information (a second
`
`hypervideo) associated with the initial indication (hotspot), receiving a request for
`
`additional information (clicking on a hyperlink in the second hypervideo), and dis-
`
`playing additional information (another video, web page or image). This disclo-
`
`sure likewise does not rely on Rangan’s hotspots against multiple claim limita-
`
`tions.
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`37. Finally, Rangan discloses that a user may access additional infor-
`
`mation by branching from the original hyperlink, such as by “engag[ing] in e-
`
`commerce.” Id., 11:16-25. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have under-
`
`stood that engaging in e-commerce would involve Rangan’s system displaying in-
`
`dications (hotspots) associated with multiple play locations, receiving a request (a
`
`user’s click on a URL or hyperlink associated with e-commerce) responsive to the
`
`indication, displaying information (for example, product information) associated
`
`with the initial indication (hotspot), receiving a request for additional information
`
`(for example, a user clicking on a further URL or hyperlink in order to view a pic-
`
`ture of the product, or the price of the product, or the like), and displaying addi-
`
`tional information (a picture of the product, the price of the product, or the like).
`
`This disclosure also does not rely on Rangan’s hotspots for multiple claim limita-
`
`tions.
`
`38.
`
`In ¶95, Dr. Reader states that “Rakib fails to remedy the deficiencies
`
`of Rangan on this limitation” but fails to provide any analysis or explanation as to
`
`why he believes Rakib fails to “remedy the deficiencies.” Accordingly, I do not
`
`know what Dr. Reader’s opinion is based on.
`
`2.
`
`Combining Rangan and Rakib
`
`39.
`
`
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
