Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 39
`Entered: September 7, 2022
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SLING TV, L.L.C.
`Petitioner
`v.
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`NEIL T. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision on Remand
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. §§ 144, 318
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`We address this case on remand after a decision by the U.S. Court of
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sling TV, L.L.C. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`No. 2021-1651, 2022 WL 306468 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2022).
`
`
`A. Background
`On July 19, 2019, Sling filed a Petition requesting inter partes review
`of claims 1–3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,721,273 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’273 patent”).
`Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Uniloc filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”). On January 15, 2020, we instituted inter partes review pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 314 as to all challenged claims. Paper 7 (“Dec. on Inst.”).
`Following institution, Uniloc filed a Patent Owner Response.
`Paper 12 (“PO Resp.”). Sling then filed a Reply. Paper 14 (“Reply”).
`Uniloc followed with a Sur-Reply. Paper 15 (“Sur-Reply”). We held an
`oral argument on October 14, 2020. A transcript of the oral hearing (“Tr.”)
`has been entered into the record as Paper 28. Following the oral hearing, we
`authorized additional briefing on claim construction with respect to the
`claim phrase “no data representing content of the second collection of
`presentations” as recited by claims 1 and 2 and its applicability to the
`asserted prior art, and the parties filed briefs in accordance with that order.
`See Papers 25–27.
`On December 28, 2020, following consideration of the full record
`developed during trial, we issued a Final Written Decision pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(d).
`Paper 29 (“Final Dec.”). In the Final Written Decision, we concluded that
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`Sling had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3
`are unpatentable on the asserted grounds. Id.
`Sling appealed to the Federal Circuit (Paper 30). In a decision issued
`on February 2, 2022, the Federal Circuit held that “[b]ecause the Board’s
`claim construction excludes a preferred embodiment and is inconsistent with
`the specification’s description of the invention, it is incorrect” and vacated
`and remanded our Decision for further proceedings. Uniloc, 2022 WL
`306468, at *3.
`The parties presented the panel with a proposed briefing schedule on
`remand and the panel granted the request. Ex. 3001. In compliance with
`that schedule, Sling filed an Opening Brief on Remand (Paper 31, “Pet.
`Opening Remand Br.”), Uniloc filed a Response (Paper 36, “PO Resp.
`Remand Br.”), Sling filed a Reply (Paper 37, “Pet. Reply Remand Br.”), and
`Uniloc filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 38, “PO Sur-Reply Remand Br.”).
`For the reasons discussed below, after considering the post-remand
`briefing, as well as the record previously developed during trial and the
`Federal Circuit’s decision, we conclude that Sling has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3 are unpatentable.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`The parties identify several district court cases involving the ’273
`patent. Pet. v; Prelim. Resp. 2. With its Response, Patent Owner filed a
`Markman ruling issued by the Central District of California on March 9,
`2020. Ex. 2001 (Markman ruling in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Netflix, Inc., 8:18-
`cv-02055).
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`C. The Claimed Invention
`The ’273 patent, titled System and Method for Aggregating and
`Providing Audio and Visual Presentations Via a Computer Network, issued
`August 1, 2017. Ex. 1001, codes (45), (54). It addresses the problem of
`locating content on the Internet for the purpose of business productivity and
`consumer education and entertainment. Id. at 1:51–55, 2:6–10. In
`particular, the ’273 patent discusses storing and aggregating audio/visual
`presentation data for delivery via a computer network using a common web
`page. Id. at 2:15–3:11.
`Figure 2 is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 2 “illustrates an electronic document according to an embodiment of
`the present invention.” Id. at 3:22–23. Web page 200 “aggregates audio
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`and/or video content for presentation to users of computers 20.” Id. at 5:4–
`6. It displays a row for each of three presentations 265, 270, and 275, each
`row including particular content graphics 230, particular content information
`240, and indicator 235. Id. at 5:16–20. “A user may select such a
`presentation for display by selecting an individual presentation for streaming
`or downloading, such as by clicking on an indicator . . . .” Id. at 5:20–23.
`The ’273 patent describes an embodiment, process 800, which is
`“suitable for automatically aggregating and linking to presentations housed
`elsewhere in memory so as to be accessible to a [user’s computer] via [a]
`network.” Id. at 10:56–62. According to the ’273 patent, “Really Simple
`Syndication (‘RSS’) is a family of [standardized] Internet feed formats used
`to publish content that may be frequently updated, such as podcasts
`(RSS 2.0).” Id. at 10:64–66. An RSS document is sometimes referred to as
`a “feed” or “channel.” Id. at 10:66–11:1. The ’273 patent explains that its
`embodiments use RSS standard 2.0. Id. at 10:66–67 (“RSS utilizes a
`standardized format.”), 11:14–16 (“Embodiments of the present invention
`will be discussed with regard to RSS 2.0 feeds for non-limiting purposes of
`explanation only.”). RSS 2.0 discloses that the standard RSS feed includes
`any number of elements, each of which includes metadata, specifically either
`title or description. Ex. 1011, 1, 2, 4 (“All elements of an item are optional,
`however at least one of title or description must be present.”); see also
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 69.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`Figure 8 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 8, above, shows a flow diagram of process 800. Id. at 10:56–58.
`After a user provides log on information at a client computer (step 805) and
`a server computer logs the user on (step 810), the logged-on user, at
`step 815, requests to link an RSS feed by interacting with a web page. Id.
`at 11:20–30. The server then requests information about the content to be
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`created, including title and description (step 820), and the user provides at
`least a portion of the requested information (step 825). Id. at 11:30–41. The
`information provided may be screened, filtered, or verified (step 830) and
`stored (step 850). Id. at 11:41–52. At step 855, the server “may determine if
`new content exists for one or more feeds stored at block 850” using “any of
`a number of conventional manner[s], including periodically checking when
`the feed was last updated.” Id. at 11:63–12:1. Any new or changed content
`may be appended to the data stored in step 850. Id. at 12:1–3.
`
`D. Claims in Issue
`Claims 1 and 2 are independent, and claim 3 depends from claim 2.
`Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter at issue and reads as follows:
`
`1. A method for providing content via a computer network and
`computing system, the method comprising:
`[a] storing presentation data that represents
`content of a first collection of one or more presentations
`using the computer system;
`[b] storing data indicative of the first collection of
`presentations so as to be associated with the presentation
`data;
`
`[c] storing feed data that represents a collection of
`one or more feeds using the computer system, wherein
`each of the feeds identifies a corresponding second
`collection of one or more presentations being accessible
`via the computer network and includes no data
`representing content of the second collection of
`presentations;
`[d] automatically and periodically accessing each
`of the feeds to identify each of the corresponding second
`collection of presentations, using the computer system;
`[e] storing data associated with a third collection of
`one or more presentations; and
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`[f] aggregating each of the first, identified second,
`and third collections of presentations for delivery via the
`computer network using a common web page.
`Ex. 1001, 12:39–59 (bracketed lettering added) (emphases added to disputed
`limitations). Claim 2—and, therefore, all challenged claims—contains
`limitations identical to those emphasized above. See id. at 13:1–3, 13:7–11.
`
`E. Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted inter partes review on the following grounds of
`unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Inst. Dec. 11.
`Claim(s)
`35 U.S.C. §
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Challenged
`Li2, knowledge of a person of skill in the art3
` 1031
` 1–3
`Li, Motte4
` 103
` 1–3
`Pet. 2, 19–63. Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of James A. Storer,
`Ph.D. (Ex. 1002).
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103, effective March 16,
`2013. Because the application from which the ’273 patent issued was filed
`before this date, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies.
`2 U.S. Patent Appl. Publication No. 2008/0256443 A1 (filed Apr. 16, 2007;
`published Oct. 16, 2008) (Ex. 1006).
`3 Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`’273 patent “would have knowledge of the webpage, Internet, and feed
`technology” discussed in Section V of the Petition. Pet. 8 (referring to
`Pet. 2–4).
`4 U.S. Patent Appl. Publication No. 2008/0071929 A1 (filed Sept. 18, 2006;
`published Mar. 20, 2008) (Ex. 1007).
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A. Legal Standards
`In an inter partes review, the petitioner has the burden of proving
`unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`That burden never shifts to the patentee. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l
`Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of skill in the art;5 and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia
`of obviousness or non-obviousness (i.e., secondary considerations).6
`
`5 Citing the testimony of Dr. Storer, Sling asserts that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art for purposes of the ’273 patent “would have had a bachelor’s
`degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at
`least two years of experience in web page and Internet technology or . . . a
`master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field
`with a specialization in web page and Internet technology. A person with
`less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this
`standard.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 49). Uniloc “does not offer a
`competing definition for purposes of this proceeding.” PO Resp. 10.
`Because we find Petitioner’s proposed definition generally consistent with
`the subject matter of the ’273 patent and cited references, we adopt it for
`purposes of this analysis.
`6 The parties do not address secondary considerations, which, therefore, do
`not constitute part of our analysis.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). One seeking to
`establish obviousness based on more than one reference also must articulate
`sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings to combine teachings. See
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
`
`B. Claim Interpretation
`1. “no data representing content”
`a. The Final Written Decision
`As reproduced above, claim 1 (and claim 2) recites “storing feed data
`that represents a collection of one or more feeds using the computer system,
`wherein each of the feeds identifies a corresponding second collection of one
`or more presentations being accessible via the computer network and
`includes no data representing content of the second collection of
`presentations” (the “feed limitation”). See Ex. 1001, 12:47–51, 13:7–11
`(emphasis added). Claim 3 depends from claim 2. Id. at 13:20–22.
`We determined in the Institution Decision that the feed limitation
`“‘encompass[es] links to RSS channels’ and ‘allow[s] storing of data
`representing content of the second collection of presentation, as long as
`those data are not included in a feed.’” Dec. on Inst. 22 (emphasis added).
`In the Final Decision, we elaborated that metadata qualify as data
`representing content. Id. at 20. Based on these findings, our definition of
`the feed limitation for the Final Decision excluded a standard RSS feed,
`which, as described above, includes metadata for each item in the feed. Id.
`at 14–22. We based this claim construction primarily on (1) our
`understanding that the Petition did not properly clarify that the ’273 patent
`alters the ordinary meaning of metadata as data representing content, and
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`(2) the ’273 patent does not limit its disclosure to RSS feeds. Id. at 17
`(citing Ex. 1001, 11:15–19).
`
`b. The Federal Circuit’s Decision on Appeal
`In its decision on appeal, the Federal Circuit holds that (1) the Petition
`sufficiently clarified Sling’s claim construction position, and (2) the ’273
`patent’s Specification “makes clear that RSS with metadata would be within
`[the feed limitation].” Uniloc, 2022 WL 306468, at *2. Specifically, the
`Federal Circuit explains that Sling’s petition explicitly maps RSS feeds to
`the claimed feed. Id. at *2. In addition, the Federal Circuit explains that
`“[b]ecause the Board’s claim construction excludes a preferred embodiment
`and is inconsistent with the specification’s description of the invention, it is
`incorrect.” Id. at *3.
`The Federal Circuit, thus, concludes that “the correct claim
`construction of the feed limitation encompasses RSS feeds containing
`metadata, but would exclude, for example RSS feeds containing ‘the entirety
`of a text story,’ which the Board noted would be within the RSS standard but
`outside the scope of the limitation.” Id. at *3 (citing Dec. on Institution 17).
`In light of this construction, the Federal Circuit directs the Board to
`“determine whether the challenged claims in the ’273 patent would have
`been obvious over Li or the combination of Li and Motte.” Id.
`
`2. “presentation data that represents content”
`As reproduced above, claim 1 (and claim 2) recite “storing
`presentation data that represents content of a first collection of one or more
`presentations using the computer system” (“the presentation data
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`limitation”). 7 See Ex. 1001, 12:41–43, 13:1–3 (emphasis added). Although
`none of the pre-remand briefing contained separate claim construction
`sections addressing this limitation, the briefing does indicate a dispute
`between the parties on the meaning of “presentation data that represents
`content.”
`For example, the Petition explains, in analyzing the obviousness of
`this limitation, that the phrase “presentation data” is not used outside the
`claims of the ’273 patent, and notes that the phrase was introduced by
`amendment. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1001, Ex. 1004, 74); Reply 17–18. Thus, in
`interpreting the term, Petitioner turns to Li’s embodiment description, stating
`that Figure 2 of the ’273 patent “illustrates a webpage 200 that presents
`‘particular content graphics 230’ and ‘particular content information 240,’
`such as a ‘content title’ for an individual presentation.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex.
`1001, 5:15–17). Based on this example, Petitioner concludes that the term
`“presentation data that represents content” encompasses content graphics,
`including thumbnails, and titles. Id. at 23–25.
`To the contrary, in pre-remand briefing, Patent Owner asserts that
`“presentation data that represents content” and “no data representing
`content” must be construed in the same manner, and, therefore, if RSS feed
`metadata is not data representing content, then thumbnails and titles also
`cannot be data representing content. Sur-Reply 3–5. Thus, Patent Owner
`concludes that thumbnails and titles must be excluded from “presentation
`data that represents content” as recited. Id. The Federal Circuit, however,
`did not agree with Patent Owner’s presumption that “presentation data that
`
`
`7 The parties refer to this limitation as “1(a).” See Pet. 23; PO Remand
`Response Br. 3.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`represents content” and “no data representing content” require the same
`construction, explicitly stating that “[w]e think that the language of the two
`limitations does not require the same construction.” Uniloc, 2022 WL
`306468, at *3 n.1.
`Post-remand, Patent Owner reiterates and enlarges the argument that
`“presentation data that represents content” does not include thumbnails or
`titles, by emphasizing the phrase “data that represents content” and
`discounting the word “presentation.” See PO Response Remand Br. 3
`(“Thus, the Board should proceed to properly address the construction of the
`‘data that represents content’ term in 1(a).”), 4 (stating that “the critical
`language is virtually identical—‘data that represents content’ versus ‘data
`representing content’”), 6 (“[T]he only difference between ‘data that
`represents content’ and ‘data representing content’ is a marginally different
`form of the word ‘represent.’”), 8 (“Based on the claim language alone, the
`Board should conclude that ‘data that represents content’ in 1(a) carries the
`same meaning as ‘data representing content’ is 1(c).”) (“The specification
`also shows that the ‘data representing content and ‘data that represents
`content’ terms should be construed the same.”), 9 (emphasizing that
`prosecution amendments to claims 1 and 2 “changed dissimilar language—
`data ‘associated with’ in 1(a), and data ‘indicative’ in 1(c)—to nearly
`identical language: data ‘that represents/representing content,’” which
`ignores that only the first limitation added the word “presentation”).
`According to Patent Owner, “the emphasis Petitioner places on the
`addition of ‘presentation’ in 1(a) is a red herring: both 1(a) and 1(c) deal
`with data relating to presentations” and “the simple addition of
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`‘presentation’ in 1(a) certainly does not support Petitioner’s argument. . . .”
`PO Remand Response Br. 9.
`Petitioner, on the other hand, notes that only the presentation data
`limitation includes the modifier “presentation” and the feed limitation
`“recites a negative limitation regarding the contents of a feed.” Pet. Remand
`Reply Br. 2. According to Petitioner, these differences and the Federal
`Circuit’s language in its decision support different constructions for the
`terms. Id.
`We agree with Petitioner that the Federal Circuit’s footnote supports a
`position that metadata included in a feed may differ from thumbnails and
`titles stored somewhere other than a feed. Uniloc, 2022 WL 306468, at *3
`n.1 (“Sling’s petition relied on Li’s disclosure of a ‘content library,’ not Li’s
`use of RSS feeds, to satisfy the ‘presentation data’ limitation.”).
`We also agree with Petitioner that the intrinsic record supports a
`construction that “presentation data representing content” includes content
`graphics, including thumbnails, and titles. In particular, the ’273 patent
`describes an embodiment in which content graphics and titles are “organized
`to indicate individual presentations.” See Ex. 1001, Figs. 2, 3, 5:16–18; see
`also id. at 5:20–23 (“A user may select such a presentation for display by
`selecting individual presentation for streaming or downloading, such as by
`clicking on an indicator 235, 240, or 245”); 6:53–56, 7:36–40, 8:58–61,
`11:31–34 (“In certain embodiments, the requested information may include
`a content title, date, series information and description, akin to that to be
`displayed in a corresponding indicator 240 (FIGS. 2, 3).”). We understand
`this disclosure to teach that content graphics 230 and content
`information 240, including titles, is presentation data that represents content.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`Patent Owner does not point us to any other disclosure of the ’273 patent
`describing presentation data that represents content. See PO Remand
`Response Br. 3–15; PO Remand Reply Br. 1–4. We also find Dr. Storer’s
`testimony to support a finding that content graphics, as used in the ’273
`patent, include thumbnails. Ex. 1002 ¶ 127 (“[l]ike the ’273 Patent, Li
`discloses particular content graphics (thumbnails) and particular content
`information (titles) representing the data files (e.g. videos) of the first
`collection.”). And Patent Owner does not dispute that the term “content
`graphics” as used in the ’273 patent includes thumbnails. See PO Remand
`Response Br. 3–15; PO Remand Reply Br. 1–4.
`Further, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that titles and
`thumbnails cannot be “presentation data that represents content” because
`they are metadata. PO Remand Response Br. 10–15. Whether thumbnails
`and titles not contained in an RSS feed are metadata is immaterial to whether
`they are “presentation data that represents content.” The Federal Circuit’s
`holding does not address metadata other than those contained in an RSS
`feed. Uniloc, 2022 WL 306468. Thus, the Federal Circuit does not
`explicitly find that metadata are not data representing content. Id. We also
`do not make such a finding.
`Because, as discussed above, the only indication from the ’273 patent
`is that graphics and titles are considered “presentation data that represents
`content,” we are not persuaded by Patent Owner to limit the term to exclude
`them.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`C. Obviousness of Claims 1–3 over Li
`1. Overview of Li
`Li is titled “System for Aggregating and Displaying Syndicated News
`Feeds.” Ex. 1006, code (54). Li describes “a content library that comprises
`both web related material (e.g. from RSS feeds) and data files (music,
`videos, pictures, . . . ).” Id. ¶ 41. Figure 1 of Li is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1, reproduced above, shows “network 14, for example the internet,”
`connected to portal server 10, which hosts the aggregator application and has
`access to different “content sources 15 (e.g. web sites)” through network 14
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`and “database 11 may be provided along portal server 10 to store RSS feed
`content sent to said server.” Id. ¶ 44.
`“One or more client devices 12 may access the content sources 15
`directly or [from] the portal server 10 through network 14.” Id. “Content
`sources 15 may for example be data feeds . . . which include audio, text,
`videos, pictures and the like . . . organized in distinct items, an item being
`for example a piece of news, a group of pictures, the title of a document and
`the link to retrieve said document.” Id. ¶ 46. Each of these items, along
`with its corresponding metadata, “may be stored in database 11 for later
`retrieval.” Id. ¶ 58.
`
`2. Claim 1
`a. Preamble: “a method for providing content via a computer
`network and computing system”
`The preamble of claim 1 recites “a method for providing content via a
`computer network and computing system.” Ex. 1001, 12:39–40. Petitioner
`asserts that Li discloses this limitation. Pet. 20–22. Specifically, Petitioner
`explains that Li discloses “network 14 that maps to the claimed ‘computer
`network’ and a portal server 10, together with a database 11, that maps to the
`claimed ‘computing system.’” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 23, 1,
`14; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 121–125). In addition, Petitioner asserts that Li’s “portal
`server 10 provides web pages to client devices 12 via a computer network 14
`(e.g., the Internet)” and “the web pages include content, such as text, images,
`videos, and web links.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 44, 51; Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 123–125).
`Based on the record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing that Li
`teaches or suggests a method for providing content via a computer network
`and computing system. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`contentions regarding the preamble. See PO Resp. 11–18; PO Sur-Reply
`1–6. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has established by a
`preponderance of the evidence that Li teaches the preamble of claim 1. 8
`
`b. The Presentation Data Limitation
`Claim 1 recites “storing presentation data that represents content of a
`first collection of one or more presentations using the computer system.”
`Ex. 1001, 12:41–43. Petitioner asserts that Li discloses this limitation.
`Pet. 23–26. Specifically, Petitioner explains that Li “discloses a first
`collection of one or more items of content in the form of data files (e.g.,
`music or videos) that a user device accesses remotely via the network.”
`Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 41, Ex. 1002 ¶ 126). According to Petitioner, Li’s
`thumbnails and titles are presentation data that represents content of the data
`files. Id. at 23–24.
`Petitioner adds that Li discloses storing the thumbnails and titles “in a
`‘content library’ of database 11 and/or a ‘cache memory of portal server 10.”
`Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 41, 113). Dr. Storer testifies that Li’s content
`library can store both data files and part of an item of content, which a
`person of ordinary skill would understand to include thumbnails and titles.
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 128 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 41, 113, 118). Finally, Petitioner asserts
`that Li discloses using database 11, a part of the computer system, to store
`the presentation data in the content library or in the cache memory of portal
`server 10. Id. at 24–25 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 40, 44, 45, 59, 81, 85, 113;
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 128–131).
`
`
`8 In light of this finding, we need not reach whether claim 1’s preamble is
`limiting.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`Patent Owner argues that Li’s thumbnails and titles do not qualify as
`“presentation data that represents content,” under its proposed construction
`of the term. Reply 3–5; PO Remand Response Br. 3–15; PO Remand Reply
`Br. 1–4. However, as explained in detail above, we do not adopt Patent
`Owner’s construction of this term. Instead, we agree with Petitioner that
`Li’s thumbnails and titles qualify as “presentation data that represents
`content.” We also agree that these data represent videos stored in a content
`library of database 11, which are part of a computer system. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 41,
`64, 113; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 128–131. Thus, Li teaches the presentation data
`limitation.
`Based on the record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing that Li
`teaches or suggests “storing presentation data that represents content of a
`first collection of one or more presentations using the computer system.”
`Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has established by a
`preponderance of the evidence that Li teaches the presentation data
`limitation of claim 1.
`
`c. “storing data indicative of the first collection of
`presentations so as to be associated with the presentation
`data”
`Claim 1 recites “storing data indicative of the first collection of
`presentations so as to be associated with the presentation data.” Ex. 1001,
`12:41–43. Petitioner asserts two alternative ways in which Li discloses this
`limitation. Pet. 26–28.
`First, Petitioner explains that Li stores item addresses in database 11.
`Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 58). According to Petitioner, “[b]y storing the
`item address of a data file of the first collection, Li allows for providing the
`data file to the user’s computing device via the computer network,” which
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`satisfies this limitation. Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 134–135). Petitioner
`adds that Li also discloses storing item addresses “so as to be associated with
`the presentation data.” Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 136).
`Second, Petitioner explains that Li describes using tags (“keywords
`that characterize the content item”) “to identify the content to include on a
`user’s personalized web page.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 57, 99). Petitioner
`adds that “Li also discloses storing the tags ‘so as to be associated with the
`presentation data.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1002 ¶ 138).
`Based on the record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing that
`both Li’s item addresses and tags teach or suggest “storing data indicative of
`the first collection of presentations so as to be associated with the
`presentation data.” Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions
`regarding this limitation. See PO Resp. 11–18; PO Sur-Reply 1–6.
`Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has established by a
`preponderance of the evidence that Li teaches this limitation of claim 1.
`
`d. The Feed Limitation
`Claim 1 recites “storing feed data that represents a collection of one or
`more feeds using the computer system, wherein each of the feeds identifies a
`corresponding second collection of one or more presentations being
`accessible via the computer network and includes no data representing
`content of the second collection of presentations.” Ex. 1001, 12:46–51.
`Petitioner asserts that Li discloses this limitation. Pet. 28–33. Specifically,
`Petitioner explains that Li discloses feed data, such as RSS feeds,
`representing a collection of one or more feeds and a registration act that
`causes portal server 10 to store an RSS feed’s URL address for later update.
`Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 3, 40–41, 72; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 140–41). Thus,
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`Petitioner concludes that Li discloses “storing feed data that represents a
`collection of one or more feeds using the computer system.” Id.
`For the “wherein” clause of the feed limitation, Petitioner asserts that
`Li’s second collection “comprises items of audio and/or video content
`obtained from an RSS data feed” that is “accessible via the computer
`network.” Id. at 30–31 (citing Ex. 1006 Fig. 2, ¶¶ 44, 46; Ex. 1002 ¶ 142).
`In addition, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
`understand that the feature of ‘no data representing content’ is inherent to an
`RSS feed, such as that disclosed by Li.” Id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 143–144). Moreover, according to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill
`would understand Li’s Figure 5C that portal server 10 would access a feed
`address. Id.
`Patent Owner argues that Li’s RSS feeds include data representing
`content under its proposed interpretation of the feed limitation because of the
`included metadata. PO Resp 13–18; PO Sur-Reply 1–6. However, as
`explained in detail above, the Federal Circuit has held that “the correct claim
`construction of the feed limitation encompasses RSS feeds containing
`metadata.” Based on this construction, we agree with Petitioner that Li
`teaches the feed limitation.
`Based on the record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing that Li
`teaches or suggests “storing feed data that represents a collection of one or
`more feeds using the computer system, wherein each of the feeds identifies a
`corresponding second collection of one or more presentations being
`accessible via the computer network and includes no data representing
`content of the second collection of presentations.” Accordingly, we
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01363
`Patent 9,721,273 B2
`determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence
`that Li teaches the feed limitation of claim 1.
`
`e. “automatically and periodic