`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`FLYWHEEL SPORTS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case: IPR2019-01411
`U.S. Patent No. 10,322,315
`Issue Date: June 18, 2019
`____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Submitted Electronically via the PTAB E2E System
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01411
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8.................................. 1
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ....................... 1
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................. 1
`
`C. Counsel And Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. §§
`42.8(b)(3) and (4) ................................................................................. 1
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ...................................... 2
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ........................................... 2
`
`A. Grounds For Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ....................... 2
`
`B.
`
`Identification Of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. §§
`42.104(b)(1) And (2) ............................................................................ 2
`
`IV. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE '315 PATENT .................... 4
`
`A. Overview Of The '315 Patent ............................................................. 4
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History Of The '315 Patent ........................................... 7
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 9
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(B)(3) ........................................................................................................ 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`"archived exercise class" .................................................................... 9
`
`Limitations [1d]-[1g] ......................................................................... 11
`
`"secondary window" (claims 3, 13) ................................................. 14
`
`"leaderboard" (claims 6-7, 16-17) ................................................... 14
`
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY ................................................................................... 14
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 9-16, 19-20 Are Anticipated
`Under § 102 By Pryor ....................................................................... 14
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-6, 9-16, 19-20 Are Obvious Under §
`103(a) Over Pryor .............................................................................. 14
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Pryor ................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01411
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(CONTINUED)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Pryor anticipates and/or renders obvious claim
`1 ................................................................................................. 15
`
`Pryor anticipates and/or renders obvious claim
`11 ............................................................................................... 23
`
`Pryor anticipates and/or renders obvious claims
`2-6, 9-10, 12-16 and 19-20 ....................................................... 24
`
`B. Ground 3: Claims 6 And 16 Are Obvious Under §
`103(a) Over Pryor In View Of The Flywheel
`Publication ......................................................................................... 29
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of the Flywheel Publication .................................. 30
`
`Claims 6 and 16 ....................................................................... 30
`
`C. Ground 4: Claims 1-2, 4, 11-12, 14 Are Obvious
`Under § 103(a) Over Watterson In View Of Hurwitz ................... 31
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Watterson ........................................................... 31
`
`Overview of Hurwitz ............................................................... 33
`
`3. Watterson and Hurwitz render claim 1 obvious .................. 35
`
`4. Watterson and Hurwitz render claim 11
`obvious ...................................................................................... 47
`
`5. Watterson and Hurwitz render dependent
`claims 2, 4, 12, 14 obvious ....................................................... 48
`
`D. Ground 5: Claims 3, 5-10, 13 And 15-20 Are Obvious
`Under § 103(a) Over Watterson And Hurwitz And In
`Further View Of Elshout .................................................................. 50
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Elshout ................................................................ 50
`
`2. Watterson, Hurwitz and Elshout render
`dependent claims 3, 5-10, 13 and 15-20 obvious .................. 52
`
`VIII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................... 67
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01411
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(CONTINUED)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`IX. THE BOARD SHOULD NOT EXERCISE ITS
`DISCRETION UNDER § 325(D) .................................................................. 68
`
`X. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 71
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2019-01411
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Acclarent, Inc. v. Albritton,
`IPR2017-00498 (PTAB July 10, 2017) .............................................................. 70
`
`Amneal Pharms., LLC v. Supernus Pharms., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00368 (PTAB Dec. 17, 2013) ............................................................. 67
`
`Becton, Dickinson and Company v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586 (PTAB December 15, 2017) .................................................... 70
`
`Bowtech, Inc., v. MCP IP, LLC,
`IPR2019-00379 (PTAB July 3, 2019) ................................................................ 69
`
`Cultec, Inc. v. Stormtech LLC,
`IPR2017-00777 (PTAB Aug. 22, 2017) ............................................................. 70
`
`Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat'l Arbitration Forum, Inc.,
`243 F. App'x 603, 607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .............................................................. 12
`
`Donghee America, Inc. v. Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation and
`Research,
`IPR2017-01654 (PTAB Jan. 19, 2018) ............................................................. 69
`
`Google Inc. v. Blackberry Ltd.,
`IPR2017-00914 (PTAB Sept. 11, 2017) ............................................................. 70
`
`Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01711 (PTAB Mar. 6, 2017) ............................................................... 69
`
`Mmodal LLC v. Nuance Communications, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01435 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2019) .............................................................. 68
`
`Quanergy Systems, Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc.,
`IPR2018-00256 (PTAB May 25, 2018) ............................................................. 67
`
`Sony Corp. v. Fujifilm Corp.,
`IPR2018-00877 (PTAB Oct. 9, 2018) ................................................................ 69
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`IPR2019-01411
`
` Page(s)
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman,
`PR2016-01571 (PTAB Dec. 14, 2016) ............................................................... 70
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................................................................. 13
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 .................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319................................................................................................. 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ....................................................................................... 68, 69, 70
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R., Part 42 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.102 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .............................................................................................. 2,3, 9
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01411
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`(Citation is to page, column, or paragraph in original, except for
`Exhibits 1004, 1009, 1015-1016, 1019, 1025-1030, 1033-1038,
`1043-1044 for which citation is to inserted page number)
`
`1001
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bryan Bergeron
`
`1002
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Bryan Bergeron
`
`1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,322,315
`
`1004
`
`File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 16/036,894
`
`1005
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0233769 to Timothy
`Pryor
`
`1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,628,730 to Scott R. Watterson et al.
`
`1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,874,957 to Hurwitz et al.
`
`1008 WO 2005/087323 A2 to Keith Robert Elshout
`
`R. Alshammari and A. N. Zincir-Heywood, "An Investigation on
`the Identification of VoIP Traffic: Case study on Gtalk and Skype,"
`available at
`https://www.cs.dal.ca/sites/default/files/technical_reports/CS-2010-
`05.pdf
`(cited at reference 1 in paper by same name in 2010 International
`Conference on Network and Service Management, Niagara Falls,
`ON, 2010, pp. 310-313, available at
`http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=569121
`0&isnumber=5691186 )
`
`D. Bonfiglio, M. Mellia, M. Meo and D. Rossi, "Detailed Analysis
`of Skype Traffic," in IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 11,
`no. 1, pp. 117-127, Jan. 2009, available at
`http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=471721
`0&isnumber=4749480
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01411
`
`
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`Yang Xu, Chenguang Yu, Jingjiang Li, and Yong Liu, "Video
`Telephony for End-consumers: Measurement Study of Google+,
`iChat, and Skype," Proceedings of the 2012 Internet Measurement
`Conference (IMC '12). Boston, Massachusetts, November 14 - 16,
`2012, pp. 371-384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2398776.2398816
`, available at
`https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2398776.2398816
`
`Lu Y., Zhao Y., Kuipers F., Van Mieghem P., "Measurement Study
`of Multi-party Video Conferencing," NETWORKING 2010,
`Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6091, Springer, Berlin,
`Heidelberg, pp. 96-108, available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
`642-12963-6_8 , available at
`https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-12963-6_8
`
`Leena Rao, "Skype Teams Up With Citrix To Bring GoToMeeting
`Web Conferencing To Business Offerings," TechCrunch, March 1,
`2011, available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20110305033430/http://techcrunch.co
`m:80/2011/03/01/skype-teams-up-with-citrix-to-bring-
`gotomeeting-web-conferencing-to-business-offerings/
`
`(Pages 4-8 of Ex. 1036 (Butler Affidavit and Ex. A to Affidavit))
`
`Elizabeth Woyke, "Facebook, Google Battle To Be Video-Calling
`Home Base," www.forbes.com, July 6, 2011 available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20141019021702/http://www.forbes.c
`om/sites/elizabethwoyke/2011/07/06/facebook-google-battle-to-be-
`video-calling-home-base/
`
`(Pages 9-11 of Ex. 1036 (Butler Affidavit and Ex. A to Affidavit))
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01411
`
`
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`Megan Geuss, " Group Video Chat Showdown: Google Hangouts
`and AnyMeeting Come Out on Top," PCWorld, Nov. 7, 2011,
`available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20120928000621/http://www.pcworld.co
`m:80/article/243238/group_video_chat_showdown_google_hangouts
`_and_anymeeting_come_out_on_top.html
`and
`https://web.archive.org/web/20120930044906/http://www.pcworld.co
`m:80/article/243238/group_video_chat_showdown_google_hangouts
`_and_anymeeting_come_out_on_top.html?page=2
`
`(Pages 12-25 of Ex. 1036 (Butler Affidavit and Ex. A to Affidavit))
`
`Catherine Saint Louis, In New York, a Rivalry Shifts into High Gear,
`The New York Times (October 8, 2010), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20101014044600/http://www.nytimes.co
`m/2010/10/10/fashion/10Spin.html
`and
`https://web.archive.org/web/20101014073935/http://www.nytimes.co
`m/2010/10/10/fashion/10Spin.html?pagewanted=2
`
`(Pages 26-30 of Ex. 1036 (Butler Affidavit and Ex. A to Affidavit))
`
`"Soul Cycle vs. Flywheel: A comparison shop and spin,"
`WellandGoodNYC.com (Feb. 22, 2010), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20161115223126/http://www.welland
`good.com:80/good-sweat/soul-cycle-vs-flywheel-a-comparison-
`shop-and-spin/
`
`(Pages 31-36 of Ex. 1036 (Butler Affidavit and Ex. A to Affidavit))
`
`Lauren Glassberg, "Flatiron studio takes spin class up a notch,"
`abclocal.go.com (March 11, 2010), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20100409054516/http://abclocal.go.com:
`80/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=7325608
`
`(Pages 37-42 Ex. 1036 (Butler Affidavit and Ex. A to Affidavit))
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01411
`
`
`
`Nick Sortal, "Flywheel brings high-tech cycling to South Florida,"
`Sun Sentinel.com (April 16, 2011), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20110423072458/http://articles.sun-
`sentinel.com/2011-04-16/health/fl-hk-flywheel-cycling-041711-
`20110415_1_stationary-cycling-flywheel-specific-bike
`and
`https://web.archive.org/web/20110423043400/http://articles.sun-
`sentinel.com:80/2011-04-16/health/fl-hk-flywheel-cycling-041711-
`20110415_1_stationary-cycling-flywheel-specific-bike/2
`
`(Pages 43-44 of Ex. 1036 (Butler Affidavit and Ex. A to Affidavit))
`
`Flywheel Website, available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20120529111518/http://www.flywheelsp
`orts.com/locations
`
`(Page 45 of Ex. 1036 (Butler Affidavit and Ex. A to Affidavit))
`
`Katherine Rosman, "The Latest Spin in Studio Cycling: Anti-Sweat
`Bikes," Wall Street Journal (Oct. 18, 2011), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20111221022728/http://online.wsj.com:8
`0/article/SB20001424052970204346104576636910111184694.html
`
`(Pages 46-48 of Ex. 1036 (Butler Affidavit and Ex. A to Affidavit))
`
`"Adding some friendly competition to your class," ICI/PRO Indoor
`Cycling 2.0 (Nov. 9, 2011), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20120916013819/https://www.indoorcycl
`einstructor.com/icipro-instructor-training/training-with-power/adding-
`some-friendly-competition-to-your-class/
`
`(Pages 49-54 of Ex. 1036 (Butler Affidavit and Ex. A to Affidavit))
`
`Screen captures from Mirror/Mirror, Episode 24, Season 4, Segment 4
`("Flywheel Sports") The Live Well Network, available at
`http://livewellnetwork.com/Mirror-Mirror/episodes/Flywheel-
`Sports/8577947
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`ix
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01411
`
`
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`Amended Complaint, Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Flywheel Sports,
`Inc., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-00390 (E.D.Tex.)
`
`"Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary," Special 2nd
`Edition, Random House, Inc., 1996
`
`"The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language," 5th
`Edition, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co., 2011
`
`"The Random House Dictionary of the English Language," 2nd
`Edition, Random House, Inc., 1987
`
`"The Pocket Oxford American Dictionary of Current English,"
`Oxford University Press, 2002
`
`1029
`
`File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 14/930,398
`
`1030
`
`File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 14/992,032
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`2012 Flywheel publication, available at
`http://web.archive.org/web/20120128121139/http://new-
`york.flywheelsports.com:80/performance-metrics
`
`(Pages 56-57 of Ex. 1036 (Butler Affidavit and Ex. A to Affidavit))
`
`Flywheel Website, available at
`http://web.archive.org/web/20120106083132/http://www.flywheelspo
`rts.com:80/locations
`
`NetAthlon Manual, available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20100331050623/http://www.riderunrow
`.com:80/pdf/NA%201.0%20User%20Guide.PDF
`
`(Pages 62-101 of Ex. 1036 (Butler Affidavit and Ex. A to
`Affidavit))
`
`x
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01411
`
`
`
`1034 Michel Marriott, "Your Shot, He Said, Distantly," The New York
`Times (August 26, 2004), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20130405063028/http://www.nytimes.co
`m/2004/08/26/technology/your-shot-he-said-distantly.html
`and
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150528054454/http://www.nytimes.
`com/2004/08/26/technology/your-shot-he-said-
`distantly.html?pagewanted=2
`
`1035
`
`Florian 'Floyd' Mueller, Frank Vetere, and Martin Gibbs, "The Design
`of Networked Exertion Games," JVRB - Journal of Virtual Reality
`and Broadcasting, 5(2008), no. 13, available at
`https://www.jvrb.org/past-issues/5.2008/1617/5200813.pdf
`
`1036
`
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler and Exhibit A to Butler Affidavit
`
`1037
`
`File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 13/956,087
`
`1038
`
`File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 15/865,206
`
`1039
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0015089 to Elisa
`Hurwitz et al.
`
`1040
`
`U.S. Patent 6,997,852 to Scott R. Watterson et al.
`
`1041
`
`Reserved
`
`1042
`
`Peloton Interactive, Inc.'s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions for U.S. Patent No. 10,322,315
`
`1043
`
`Declaration of Ruth Zukerman
`
`1044
`
`Comparison between U.S. Patent 6,997,852 and U.S. Patent
`Application Publication No. 2009/0233769
`
`
`
`xi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01411
`
`
`
`Flywheel Sports, Inc. ("Flywheel" or "Petitioner") respectfully petitions
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R., Part 42 for inter partes review ("IPR")
`
`of claims 1-20 ("the Challenged Claims") of U.S. Patent No. 10,322,315 (Ex. 1003,
`
`"the '315 patent"). There is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one challenged claim.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`
`
`Flywheel Sports, Inc., Flywheel Sports Parent, Inc. and Kennedy Lewis
`
`Management LP are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`
`
`Petitioner filed petitions for IPR of related U.S. Patent Nos. 9,174,085 (Case
`
`No. IPR2019-00294), 9,233,276 (Case No. IPR2019-00295) and 9,861,855 (Case
`
`No. IPR2019-00564), which are asserted in in Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Flywheel
`
`Sports, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-00390 (E.D. Tex.). On June 5, 2019, the
`
`Board instituted IPR on all claims of each of these related patents.
`
`C. Counsel And Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. §§
`42.8(b)(3) and (4)
`
`
`
`Lead counsel for Petitioner is Jeffrey S. Ginsberg (Reg. No. 36,148), and
`
`back-up counsel are Abhishek Bapna (Reg. No. 64,049) with Patterson Belknap
`
`Webb & Tyler LLP, 1133 Avenue of the Americas, New York NY 10036, Tel:
`
`212-336-2000.
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01411
`
`
`
`Petitioner consents to email service at jginsberg@pbwt.com and
`
`abapna@pbwt.com.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`Petitioner authorizes the Commissioner to charge the filing fee, and all other
`
`required fees, to Attorney Deposit Account No. 506642.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A. Grounds For Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the '315 patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds identified herein.
`
`The '315 patent issued June 18, 2019 from U.S. Application No. 16/036,894
`
`("the '894 application") (filed on July 16, 2018, which claims priority to, inter alia,
`
`U.S. Provisional Applications 61/677,985, filed on July 31, 2012, and 61/798,342,
`
`filed on March 15, 2013) . The '315 patent is eligible for IPR before nine months
`
`from the grant of the patent because it is not a first-inventor-to-file patent (see 37
`
`CFR § 42.102(a)(2)), as evinced by Patent Owner's representation in the
`
`corresponding litigation that "[t]he '315 Patent is entitled to a priority date no later
`
`than the filing date of the earliest application to which it claims priority," i.e., "July
`
`31, 2012." Ex. 1042, 2.
`
`B.
`
`Identification Of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(1)
`And (2)
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-20 of the '315 patent on the
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01411
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground Claims
`
`Basis for Challenge
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`1-6, 9-16,
`19-20
`
`1-6, 9-16,
`19-20
`
`6, 16
`
`Anticipated under § 102 by U.S. Patent Application
`Publication No. 2009/0233769 ("Pryor," Ex. 1005)
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) over Pryor
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) over Pryor in view of 2012
`Flywheel publication ("the Flywheel publication," Ex.
`1031)
`
`1, 2, 4, 11,
`12, 14
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) over U.S. Patent No. 7,628,730
`("Watterson," Ex. 1006) in view of U.S. Patent No.
`7,874,957 ("Hurwitz," Ex. 1007)
`
`3, 5-10,
`13, 15-20
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) over Watterson in view of Hurwitz
`and WO 2005/087323 A2 ("Elshout," Ex. 1008)
`
`Each ground is supported by Petitioner's exhibits, including the Declaration
`
`of Dr. Bryan Bergeron ("Bergeron Declaration") (Ex. 1001) explaining how a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention ("POSA")
`
`would have understood the scope and content of the prior art as well as the
`
`motivation to combine the prior art teachings.
`
`For the purposes of this petition only, Petitioner assumes that all Challenged
`
`Claims of the '315 patent are entitled to claim priority to U.S. Provisional
`
`application No. 61/677,985, filed July 31, 2012.
`
`Pryor published September 17, 2009; Watterson published December 8,
`
`2009; Hurwitz issued January 25, 2011; and Elshout published September 22,
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01411
`
`2005. Thus, each qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The Flywheel
`
`publication published at least as early as January 28, 2012 and qualifies as prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`IV. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE '315 PATENT
`
`A. Overview Of The '315 Patent
`
`The '315 patent, entitled "Exercise System and Method," purportedly solves
`
`the problems of overcrowding, limited schedules and limited locations associated
`
`with participation in-gym and boutique studio cycling classes. Ex. 1003, 1:59-63.
`
`The solution provided is to send video and audio cycling class content to in-home
`
`stationary bikes over the internet. Id., Abstract, Figs. 1 and 16, 1:28-31, 2:6-13,
`
`4:7-13, 10:29-32.
`
`
`
`An exemplary embodiment of a stationary bike as disclosed in the '315
`
`patent is shown below.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01411
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 1. The stationary bike includes an integrated or separately connected
`
`computer and display. Id., Figs. 1-4, 4:62-65, 10:29-38. The bike may also
`
`include sensors for measuring a user's performance metrics, and may communicate
`
`this data to local and/or remote processing components. Id., 5:45-48, 10:5-28.
`
`Selected live or archived classes are displayed on the screen along with the
`
`user's performance metrics. Id., Figs. 8-10, 2:14-21, 7:32-33, 8:8-14, 9:33-41,
`
`11:39-45. Multiple remote users can access the same live or recorded class
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01411
`
`simultaneously. Id., 13:30-34, 4:47-49. Performance information about other
`
`users in a class may be displayed on a leaderboard or in other formats. Id., 8:38-
`
`40, 9:26-29.
`
`Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
`
`1. [1a]1 A method for displaying live and archived exercise classes
`
`comprising:
`
`[1b] displaying information about available live and archived exercise
`
`classes that can be accessed by a first user via a digital communication
`
`network on a display screen at a first location, wherein the first user can
`
`select either a live exercise class or select among a plurality of archived
`
`exercise classes;
`
`[1c] receiving a selection of one of the available live or archived exercise
`
`classes by the first user;
`
`[1d] outputting digital video and audio content comprising the selected
`
`exercise class at the first location to the first user;
`
`[1e] determining one or more performance parameters for the first user at the
`
`first location at a plurality of points in the selected exercise class;
`
`
`1 Labels [1a]-[1g]—which similarly apply to claim 11([11a]-[11h]) (Ex. 1001,
`
`n.1)—are consistently used in the Petition for convenience.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01411
`
`[1f] displaying at least one performance parameter for the first user at the
`
`first location on the display screen; and
`
`[1g] dynamically displaying one or more performance parameters for a
`
`second user at a second location on the display screen at the first location
`
`such that at least one of the performance parameters for the first user at the
`
`plurality of points in the selected exercise class and at least one of the
`
`performance parameters for the second user at the same points in the
`
`selected exercise class are presented for comparison on the display screen at
`
`the first location.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History Of The '315 Patent
`
`The '315 patent claims benefit to U.S. Application Nos. 15/865,206 ("the
`
`'206 application"), 14/992,032 ("the '032 application"), 14/930,398 ("the '398
`
`application") and 13/956,087 ("the '087 application").
`
`During prosecution of the '894 application, Watterson, Pryor and Hurwitz
`
`were included in an information disclosure statement ("IDS") listing about 130
`
`references, to which the Examiner marked "All References Considered." Ex. 1004,
`
`100-103. No rejection was issued.
`
`Regards to the '087 application, in a non-final office action, dated March 12,
`
`2015, the Examiner rejected, inter alia, pending dependent claim 13 as obvious
`
`over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0258758 ("Hickman") in view
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01411
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,892,219 ("Pryor '219"2). Ex. 1037, 112-115. The rejection
`
`only relied on Pryor '219 for disclosure that pedal cadence could be monitored on
`
`an exercise bike. Patent Owner amended claim 13 and its parent claim, and argued
`
`claim 13 should be allowed as depending from allowable amended parent claim.
`
`Id., 137. The Examiner allowed the amended claims. Id., 152.
`
`In the '398 application, Pryor '219 and Hurwitz were identified as "prior art
`
`made of record and not relied upon . . . considered pertinent to applicant's
`
`disclosure." Ex. 1029, 85-87. No rejection was issued. There is no substantive
`
`discussion on Pryor '219 or Hurwitz.
`
`In the '032 application, Watterson, Pryor and Hurwitz were included in an
`
`IDS, which the Examiner marked with the text "All References Considered." Ex.
`
`1030, 163-66. No rejection was issued.
`
`In the '206 application, the Examiner listed US 6,997,852 (Ex. 1040) and US
`
`2008/0015089 (Ex. 1039) along with US 2007/0219059 to Schwartz in the "Notice
`
`of References Cited." Ex. 1038, 28. US 6,997,852 is a patent from which
`
`Watterson claims benefit as a continuation in part. The specifications are
`
`substantially different. See generally Ex. 1044. US 2008/0015089 is the patent
`
`
`2 Pryor '219 issued from a continuation of the application published as Pryor, a
`
`reference relied on in this Petition.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01411
`
`application publication that led to Hurwitz. No rejection was issued. In reasons
`
`for allowance, the examiner merely made a conclusory statement that "[t]he prior
`
`art fails to show or suggest as detailed in claim 1," and largely copy-pasted claim 1.
`
`Ex. 1038, 25. There is no substantive discussion on how or in what combination
`
`the references fail to teach or suggest the claims of the '206 application.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`With respect to the technology described in the '315 patent, a POSA as of
`
`July 2012 would be a person with a Bachelor's degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer science, physics, or comparable academic experience and at least two
`
`years of practical experience in the design of network-based applications and/or
`
`equipment interface systems for providing multi-media content such as on-line
`
`exercise classes. Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 80-84.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)
`
`A.
`
`"archived exercise class"
`
`In the related IPRs, Patent Owner proposed that the term "archived cycling
`
`class" be construed as "a stored recording of at least an entire cycling class."
`
`IPR2019-00294, POPR, Paper 10, 35-36; IPR2019-00295, POPR, Paper 10, 37;
`
`IPR2019-00564, POPR, Paper 11, 28 (emphasis added). Patent Owner apparently
`
`seeks to exclude on-line, on-demand classes containing pre-recorded video and
`
`audio of an instructor leading a cycling class, unless that video and audio is
`
`uninterrupted and runs the entire length of the class. Petitioner expects Patent
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01411
`
`Owner to propose a similar incorrect construction here as in the related IPRs.
`
`Claim 1 recites a "method for displaying live and archived exercise classes."
`
`The classes are "accessed … via a digital communication network" and are
`
`comprised of "digital video and audio content." Nowhere in claim 1 (or in claim 4)
`
`is this content restricted to singular recordings running the length of a class. Ex.
`
`1001, ¶ 61.
`
`Consistently, the specification teaches that the distinction between live and
`
`archived classes is that archived classes are available on-demand. Ex. 1003, 6:57-
`
`60 ("archived content (referred to in the Figures as 'Rides on Demand')"); Ex.
`
`1001, ¶ 62. Patent Owner appears to agree with this. See IPR2019-00294, POPR,
`
`Paper 10, 36; IPR2019-00295, POPR, Paper 10, 38; IPR2019-00564, POPR, Paper
`
`11, 29.
`
`
`
`Moreover, the specification simply states that the stationary bike user
`
`interface may present "one or more video streams" and that "[t]he various video
`
`streams may include . . . recorded streaming instructor video or any other video
`
`content." Ex. 1003, 9:33-41 (emphasis added); Ex. 1001, ¶ 63.
`
`
`
`In sum, neither the claims nor the specification puts any restriction on the
`
`form of "archived exercise classes." Ex. 1001, ¶ 64. Instead, the claims and
`
`specification simply require that "archived exercise classes" be available on-
`
`demand and that they include some stored digital video and audio content. Id.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01411
`
`
`
`In the related IPRs, the Board correctly disagreed with the Patent Owner's
`
`proposed construction because "it unnecessarily reads the limitation 'entire' into the
`
`claim." IPR2019-00294, Institution Decision ("ID"), Paper 20, 40; IPR2019-
`
`00295, ID, Paper 21, 40; IPR2019-00564, ID, Paper 20, 35.
`
`B.
`
`Limitations [1d]-[1g]3
`
`
`
`In the related IPRs, Patent Owner's proposed construction required prior art
`
`to disclose limitations [1d]–[1g] to be "performable on live and archived classes."
`
`IPR2019-00294, POPR, Paper 10, 42; IPR2019-00295, POPR, Paper 10, 43-44;
`
`IPR2019-00564, POPR, Paper 11, 35 (emphasis added). This is incorrect, and
`
`should be rejected as the Board did in the related IPRs. IPR2019-00294, ID, Paper
`
`20, 14-18; IPR2019-00295, ID Paper 21, 14-18; IPR2019-00564, ID Paper 20, 10-
`
`14; see also Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 65-67.
`
`
`
`Claim 1 is directed to a method, and is infringed when each step, from [1b]
`
`through [1g], is performed. Steps [1d] through [1g] are performed for a live class
`
`if the first user has selected a live class, and are performed for an archived class if
`
`an archived class has been selected. If a live class is selected, claim 1 can be
`
`infringed if the performance parameters of the first and second users are displayed
`
`"at the same point in the selected [LIVE] exercise class."
`
`What might or might not happen had an archived class been selected is
`
`
`3 The construction discussed herein applies to limitations [11d] through [11h].
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01411
`
`immaterial. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat'l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 F. App'x
`
`603, 607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("It is of course true that method steps may be
`
`contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the
`
`performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed
`
`method to be performed.").
`
`
`
`It follows that the prior art need not disclose that limitations [1d] through
`
`[1g] be performed if the first user selects an archived class.4 Ex. 1001, ¶ 68. Thus,
`
`Patent Owner's proposed construction should be rejected.
`
`In the related IPRs, Patent Owner a