Paper 40
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: February 8, 2022
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C., DISH TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C., and
`SLING TV L.L.C.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C., and Sling TV
`L.L.C. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5–7, 13–15, 18, 20, 21, 24,
`25, 27, and 29 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,796 B1
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’796 patent”). Patent Owner, Sound View Innovations, LLC
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`(“Patent Owner”), filed a preliminary response (Paper 8). With our
`authorization (Paper 9), Petitioner filed a preliminary reply (Paper 10) and
`Patent Owner filed a preliminary sur-reply (Paper 11) directed to Patent
`Owner’s arguments regarding collateral estoppel and 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) in
`the Preliminary Response. Taking into account the arguments presented in
`these papers, we determined that the information presented in the Petition
`established that there was a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted this proceeding on February 24, 2021, as to
`all challenged claims and all grounds of unpatentability. Paper 13 (“Dec. on
`Inst.”).
`During the course of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 23, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent
`Owner Response (Paper 28, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner also filed a
`Sur-reply. Paper 36 (“PO Sur-reply”). An oral hearing was held on
`November 18, 2021, and a transcript of the hearing is included in the record.
`Paper 38 (“Tr.”).
`Petitioner filed declarations of Dr. Kevin Negus with its Petition
`(Ex. 1002) and its Reply (Ex. 1021). Patent Owner filed a declaration of
`Mark T. Jones, Ph.D., with its Response. Ex. 2005. The parties also filed
`transcripts of the depositions of Dr. Negus (Exs. 2006, 2007) and Dr. Jones
`(Ex. 1020).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This decision is a Final
`Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of
`claims 1–3, 5–7, 13–15, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, and 29 of the ’796 patent.
`For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`preponderance of the evidence that any of claims 1–3, 5–7, 13–15, 18, 20,
`21, 24, 25, 27, and 29 of the ’796 patent is unpatentable.
`
`
`B.
`
`A.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`Real Parties-in-Interest
`Petitioner identifies DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies
`L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C., Sling TV Holding L.L.C., and DISH Network
`Corporation as real parties-in-interest. Pet., at vi. Patent Owner identifies
`Sound View Innovations, LLC, and Sound View Innovation Holdings, LLC,
`as real parties-in-interest. Paper 5, 1.
`
`Related Proceedings
`The parties identify the following district court actions related to the
`’796 patent (Pet., at vi–vii; Paper 5, 1–2, Paper 7, 1):
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. DISH Network LLC, No. 1:19-cv-
`03707 (D. Colo. filed Dec. 30, 2019);
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Sling TV LLC, No. 1:19-cv-03709
`(D. Colo. filed Dec. 30, 2019);
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2:17-cv-04146 (C.D.
`Cal. filed June 2, 2017) (“the California litigation”);
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. AMC Networks, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-
`00145 (D. Del. filed Jan. 25, 2019; terminated Apr. 24, 2020);
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. HSN, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00193 (D.
`Del. filed Jan. 30, 2019; terminated Apr. 16, 2020);
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. QVC, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00194 (D.
`Del. filed Jan. 30, 2019; terminated Apr. 15, 2020);
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. CBS Corp., No. 1:19-cv-00146 (D.
`Del. filed Jan. 25, 2019; terminated Apr. 15, 2020); and
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Twitter, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-00652
`(D. Del. filed July 29, 2016; terminated Jan. 19, 2017).
`
`The ’796 patent
`The ’796 patent relates to “decreasing the playback delay at a client
`computer of a live streaming broadcast transmitted over a network.”
`Ex. 1001, 1:8–11. Figure 2 of the ’796 patent is reproduced below.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts public network system (PNS) 14, which is a high-speed,
`high-bandwidth interactive distribution network such as the Internet. Id. at
`3:1–2, 4:32–37. Content server 12 stores and serves content, such as text,
`audio, video, graphic images, and other multimedia data, over network 14 to
`client computers 26–40. Id. at 4:32–42. Network 14 also includes helper
`servers (HSs) 22–24, each of which is configured as a conventional server
`having processing capabilities, including a central processing unit (not
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`shown) and storage. Id. at 4:42–45. HSs 22–24 cache Internet resources
`requested by client computers 26–40 and downloaded from content
`server 12 to allow localized serving of those resources. Id. at 4:45–49. In
`particular, requests from client computers 26–40 for live streaming
`multimedia (SM) broadcasts are redirected to the client computer’s local HS
`to be serviced therefrom. Id. at 5:49–51.
`The ’796 patent discloses the use of playout history (PH) buffers in
`the random access memory of each HS to reduce start-up latency associated
`with live SM broadcasts. Id. at 4:26–29, 5:18–25. Each PH buffer is a form
`of short-term dynamic cache for storing the last few seconds of a live SM
`broadcast. Id. at 4:29–31, 5:18–25. By redirecting client requests to HSs
`and servicing those requests from PH buffers maintained in a local memory
`associated with an HS, the streaming data rate to the client is enhanced and
`start-up latency is reduced. Id. at 5:25–29. In particular, the closer
`proximity between HSs and clients allows for a higher streaming data rate.
`Id. at 5:35–36. Servicing requests from the PH buffers also enhances the
`streaming data rate by making a number of previously stored data packets of
`the requested stream immediately available to be streamed to the client. Id.
`at 5:36–40.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 15, 20, and 27 of the ’796 patent
`are independent. Claims 2, 3, 5–7, 13, and 14 depend directly or indirectly
`from claim 1; claim 18 depends from claim 15; claims 21, 24, and 25 depend
`from claim 20; and claim 29 depends from claim 27. Claim 1 is illustrative
`of the challenged claims and recites the following:
`
`D.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`1.
`In a network having a content server which hosts a
`plurality of live streaming multimedia (SM) broadcast objects
`for distribution over said network through a plurality of helper
`servers (HSs) to a plurality of clients, a method of reducing
`start-up latency associated with distributing said plurality of
`live SM broadcast objects from said content server and said
`plurality of HSs to said plurality of clients, said method
`comprising:
`receiving a first request from one of said plurality of
`clients for one of said plurality of live SM broadcast objects at
`one of said plurality of HSs;
`determining whether said first request can be partially
`serviced from a pre-configured playout history (PH) buffer
`allocated in a memory associated with said one of said plurality
`of HSs; and
`partially servicing said first request from said pre-
`configured PH buffer at a first data rate, if said determining step
`is satisfied, the first data rate being higher than a standard data
`rate associated with servicing the first request from a non pre-
`configured PH buffer.
`Ex. 1001, 12:16–35.
`
`Prior Art
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
`U.S. Patent No. 6,263,371 B1, filed June 10, 1999, issued
`July 17, 2001 (Ex. 1009, “Geagan”);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,737,747, filed June 10, 1996, issued
`Apr. 7, 1998 (Ex. 1010, “Vishlitzky”); and
`B. Zheng and M. Atiquzzaman, “Multimedia Over High
`Speed Networks: Reducing Network Requirement with Fast
`Buffer Fillup,” Proceedings of IEEE GLOBECOM 1998,
`Sydney, Australia, Nov. 8–12, 1998, pp. 779–84 (Ex. 1012,
`“Zheng”).
`
`E.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`F.
`
`The Instituted Grounds
`We instituted inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5–7, 13–15, 18, 20,
`21, 24, 25, 27, and 29 of the ’796 patent on the following grounds (Dec. on
`Inst. 37), which are all the grounds presented in the Petition (Pet. 1):
`Claims Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`References
`1–3, 5–7, 13–15, 18,
`103(a)1
`Geagan, Vishlitzky
`20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29
`1–3, 5–7, 13–15, 18,
`20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29
`
`103(a)
`
`Geagan, Vishlitzky, Zheng
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standards
`A 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. See 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; and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
`considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`We also recognize that prior art references must be “considered together
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the
`’796 patent was filed before March 16, 2013 (the effective date of the
`relevant amendments), the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 apply.
`
`7
`
`

`

`B.
`
`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d
`559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Citing testimony from Dr. Negus, Petitioner contends a person of
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had
`at least a Bachelor of Science in at least one of Electrical
`Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science or a
`related field, as well as at least three to four years of experience
`in implementing protocols and/or equipment for streaming
`multimedia data, or a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering,
`or an equivalent field, as well as at least two years of
`experience in implementing protocols and/or equipment for
`streaming multimedia data.
`Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). In our Decision on Institution, we adopted
`Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill without the instances of
`the qualifier “at least.” Dec. on Inst. 8–9.
`After institution, neither party put forth arguments related to the level
`of ordinary skill. We discern no reason to change the level of ordinary skill
`in the art applied in this Final Written Decision. Thus, a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have had either (1) a Bachelor of Science in Electrical
`Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or a related field, as
`well as three to four years of experience in implementing protocols and/or
`equipment for streaming multimedia data; or (2) a Master’s degree in
`Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as two years of
`experience in implementing protocols and/or equipment for streaming
`multimedia data. We are satisfied that this definition comports with the
`
`8
`
`

`

`C.
`
`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the
`’796 patent and the asserted prior art.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, we construe each claim “in accordance with
`the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Accordingly, our claim construction standard is the
`same as that of a district court. See id. Under the standard applied by
`district courts, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary
`meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`(en banc). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a
`patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when
`the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the
`specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am.
`LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`In our Decision on Institution, we determined that the preambles of
`independent claims 1, 15, 20, and 27 are limiting. Dec. on Inst. 10–11.
`Petitioner does not take an express position on whether the preambles of the
`challenged claims are limiting. See Pet. 21 (stating that Geagan teaches the
`preamble “to the extent it is limiting”). Patent Owner supports our
`preliminary determination that the preambles are limiting. PO Resp. 37–41.
`Given this posture, we discern no reason to change our initial determination
`that the preambles are limiting. Thus, even though the disposition of this
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`case does not turn on any particular limitation in the preamble, we maintain
`our determination that the preambles of claims 1, 15, 20, and 27 are limiting
`to the extent they color our analysis of Petitioner’s rationale for combining
`various prior art references.
`We determine that no terms require explicit construction.2 See, e.g.,
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013,
`1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’
`. . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`D. Obviousness Ground Based on Geagan and Vishlitzky
`Petitioner contends the subject matter of claims 1–3, 5–7, 13–15, 18,
`20, 21, 24, 25, 27, and 29 would have been obvious over the combination of
`Geagan and Vishlitzky. Pet. 21–63; Pet. Reply 3–29. Patent Owner
`disputes Petitioner’s contentions. PO Resp. 16–54; PO Sur-reply 1–24.
`
`Geagan
`1.
`Geagan is a U.S. patent directed to “a scheme for merging together
`information from multiple input data streams to produce an output data
`stream that includes fewer information ‘gaps’ than any of the individual
`input data streams.” Ex. 1009, 1:5–8. Geagan states that its scheme can be
`
`
`2 We note, however, that the patentee defined explicitly several terms in the
`’796 patent. See Ex. 1001, 3:38–65.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`applied to live broadcasts of streaming content delivered via the Internet. Id.
`at 1:9–10. Figure 2 of Geagan is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates the use of proxies disposed in communication paths
`between a content source and content consumers. Id. at 8:4–7. In the
`illustrated embodiment, users 10 and 16 wish to view the same live
`streaming content from a content source (i.e., server 12) over network 20,
`which may be the Internet. Id. at 9:32–35, 9:38–43. Proxy 22 is disposed in
`the connection between server 12 and users 10 and 16 as close to the last
`physical media link to users 10 and 16 as possible, such as where a user’s
`dial-up Internet connection is terminated. Id. at 9:50–56. As such, user 10
`connects to proxy 22 via connection 24, while user 16 connects to proxy 22
`via connection 26. Id. at 9:59–61. Streams that are downloaded from
`server 12 may be routed over connection 28 to proxy 22 before being passed
`to users 10 and 16 over connections 24 and 26, respectively. Id. at 9:61–64.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`This reduces the volume of data being downloaded from server 12. Id. at
`9:64–67.
`Geagan also describes “data seaming,” which is “a counter-intuitive
`process by which, in the face of significant data loss, even more data than
`was originally being broadcast is requested.” Id. at 10:9–11. The goal of
`data seaming is “to stitch together, or seam, packets from different input
`streams or traffic flows into an output stream that has fewer information
`gaps than any of the input streams.” Id. at 10:15–21. As shown in Geagan’s
`Figure 2, proxy 22 may open additional connections 30a and 30b to
`server 12 when there is significant packet loss over connection 28. Id. at
`10:22–28. Additional connections 30a and 30b transport the same data
`being transported across connection 28. Id. at 10:28–33. Because the
`missing data packets are generally different across different connections,
`proxy 22 can “seam” (i.e., fill in missing packets from the additional
`connections) streams such that the streams played out to users 10 and 16
`over connections 24 and 26 may include packets from connections 28, 30a,
`and 30b. Id. at 10:33–43.
`Figure 5 of Geagan is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`Figure 5 depicts an implementation of proxy 50 configured to perform
`seaming operations. Id. at 8:16–18, 12:23–24. Multiple incoming
`streams 52 are applied to receive buffer 54, which is a shared memory that
`processes incoming streams 52 and stores data packets of incoming
`streams 52 in logical queues. Id. at 12:29–37. Sequencer 56 carries out
`sequencing operations by examining the various packets from incoming
`streams 52 and assembling seamed streams within transmit buffer 58. Id. at
`12:42–47. The assembled streams in transmit buffer 58 are played out as
`seamed outgoing streams 60 at a rate optimized for a receiving client (not
`shown). Id. at 12:47–54.
`
`
`Vishlitzky
`2.
`Vishlitzky is a U.S. patent titled “Prefetching to Service Multiple
`Video Streams from an Integrated Cached Disk Array.” Ex. 1010,
`code (54). Vishlitzky “relates generally to data storage subsystems, and
`more particularly to cached disk arrays” and “specifically relates to video
`servers.” Id. at 1:25–27. Vishlitzky discloses that a “video file server
`includes an integrated cached disk array storage subsystem and a plurality of
`stream server computers linking the cached disk storage subsystem to the
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`data network for the transfer of video data streams.” Id. at code (57).
`Figure 2 of Vishlitzky is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts a block diagram of a video file server and its connections to
`the network. Id. at 3:20–21. Figure 2 includes controller servers and stream
`servers. Id. at 6:9–17. Shown in Figure 2 “are dual redundant computers
`28, 29, each of which is similar to each of the stream servers 21.” Id. at
`5:22–24. “Each of the dual redundant controller servers 28, 29 has a
`network attachment to a bidirectional link (30 in FIG. 2) in the network (25
`in FIG. 2) through which each of the controller servers 28, 29 can conduct
`service protocols.” Id. at 5:25–28. “For multi-media data transfer, the
`active one of the controller servers 28, 29 assigns one of the stream
`servers 21 to the network client 54 requesting multi-media service.” Id. at
`5:55–57. A software application running on the active one of controller
`servers 28, 29 “executes as a central control to prevent the video file server
`from performing conflicting operations in response to concurrent requests
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`from various network clients.” Id. at 7:41–49. The software may include an
`admission control program, which “applies an admission control policy to
`determine whether a service request can be satisfied, and if so, sends the
`stream servers 21 appropriate control messages that invoke their real-time
`schedulers to schedule operations to satisfy the service request.” Id. at 7:62–
`8:3.
`
`Vishlitzky further discloses that “sharing prefetched data . . . can be
`further adapted to permit sharing of fetched data in the RAM [random access
`memory] of a stream server to support more than one video stream from the
`RAM of the stream server.” Id. at 21:65–22:9. Figure 16 of Vishlitzky is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 16 is a schematic diagram showing “movie-on demand” service to
`numerous network clients simultaneously viewing different portions of a
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`popular movie. Id. 3:60–63, 22:10–12. Vishlitzky teaches that “it is
`advantageous to initially allocate large amounts of random access memory
`of the stream servers to the popular movies.” Id. at 22:2–5. In the example
`depicted in Figure 16, “a block of data for a third of a movie is stored in the
`RAM of each of four stream servers 91, 92, 93, and 94.” Id. at 22:12–17.
`Vishlitzky teaches the following:
`Preferably the block of data in the RAM of each of the four
`stream servers 91, 92, 93 and 94 is a sliding “window” into the
`movie. New data are added to each window, and old data are
`removed from each window, at the rate at which data are
`delivered to the network clients viewing the movie. The block
`of data providing such a sliding window, for example, is
`maintained as a simple circular queue.
`Id. at 22:18–23.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`Figure 17 of Vishlitzky is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 17 is a flowchart of a procedure used in the admission control
`program for servicing client requests from a network based on whether the
`request is related to a popular movie. Id. at 23:5–8. If a client request is for
`a popular movie (step 171), a determination is made “whether the desired
`starting time or position in the movie of the new request falls in the RAM
`window of the requested movie in the indexed stream server PC” (step 174).
`Id. at 23:16–25. If so, and if the indexed PC has sufficient resources to
`handle the request (step 175), the request is assigned to the indexed stream
`server PC (step 176). Id. at 23:25–28, 23:43–46. If a client request is for an
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`unpopular movie (step 171), other processes are performed, such as a
`standard prefetching technique. Id. at 23:8–17.
`
`
`Claim 1
`3.
`We first set forth Petitioner’s unpatentability contentions for claim 1
`and then turn to the parties’ positions regarding Petitioner’s rationale for
`combining Geagan and Vishlitzky, which is the dispositive issue for this
`ground.
`
`
`a.
`Petitioner’s Unpatentability Contentions
`The preamble of claim 1 is reproduced below:
`In a network having a content server which hosts a plurality of
`live streaming multimedia (SM) broadcast objects for
`distribution over said network through a plurality of helper
`servers (HSs) to a plurality of clients, a method of reducing
`start-up latency associated with distributing said plurality of
`live SM broadcast objects from said content server and said
`plurality of HSs to said plurality of clients, said method
`comprising[.]
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`Ex. 1001, 12:16–23. To explain its contentions regarding the preamble,
`Petitioner provides an annotated version of Figure 2 of Geagan, which is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`Pet. 22. As shown in this annotated version of Geagan’s Figure 2, Petitioner
`maps the recited “content server” of claim 1 to Geagan’s server 12, which
`Petitioner has highlighted in red. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 252–253; Ex. 1009,
`9:50–56). Petitioner maps the recited “network” to Geagan’s network 20,
`which Petitioner has highlighted in green. Id. Petitioner maps the recited
`“helper servers (HSs)” to Geagan’s proxy 22 and proxy 34, which Petitioner
`has highlighted in purple. Id. Petitioner maps the recited “clients” to
`Geagan’s users 10, 16, and 32, which Petitioner has highlighted in blue. Id.
`Petitioner further cites Geagan’s teaching of
`“live broadcasts of streaming content delivered via the Internet”
`using “a proxy (transparent or explicit) [that] is introduced
`between a content source (e.g., a server) and one or more clients
`(e.g., Web browsers, or plugins therefor, configured to play
`streaming content or other multimedia viewers, other proxies,
`playback devices, etc.), preferably at a location that is close
`(e.g., physically or logically) to the clients.”
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`Pet. 22 (quoting Ex. 1009, 1:5–10, 8:27–32) (alteration by Petitioner).
`Petitioner contends Geagan teaches “reducing start-up latency associated
`with distributing said plurality of live SM broadcast objects” by, inter alia,
`buffering streaming content at the proxy servers, which are physically or
`logically close to the clients. Id. at 26 (quoting Ex. 1009, 8:27–36) (citing
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 264–265).
`Claim 1 further recites “receiving a first request from one of said
`plurality of clients for one of said plurality of live SM broadcast objects at
`one of said plurality of HSs.” Ex. 1001, 12:24–26. Petitioner cites Geagan’s
`teaching of users requesting streaming content by opening connections
`between a proxy and the content server. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1009, 9:56–61,
`14:9–15). Petitioner notes that the user’s connection to the content server
`passes through the proxy. Id. (citing Ex. 1009, 9:56–61). Because the
`connection passes through the proxy, Petitioner contends the user’s request
`for content must be received at the proxy (i.e., one of the recited “helper
`servers (HSs)”). Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 290; Ex. 1009, 8:27–36, 9:56–
`61).
`
`Claim 1 additionally recites “determining whether said first request
`can be partially serviced from a pre-configured playout history (PH) buffer
`allocated in a memory associated with said one of said plurality of HSs.”
`Ex. 1001, 12:27–30. For the recited “pre-configured playout history (PH)
`buffer,” Petitioner cites Geagan’s teaching that proxies receive “data streams
`that ‘can be buffered and any information gaps (e.g., due to packet loss) in
`the received streams can be filled using information from other server-
`source streams.’” Pet. 28–29 (quoting Ex. 1009, 8:36–42); see also id. at 29
`(citing Geagan’s receive buffer 54 as described at Ex. 1009, 12:30–32,
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`Fig. 5). For the buffer being “allocated in a memory associated with said
`one of said plurality of HSs,” Petitioner cites Geagan’s teaching that the
`buffer can be “a shared memory operated under the control of a memory
`controller.” Id. at 29–30 (quoting Ex. 1009, 12:33–37). Regarding servicing
`requests from a buffer, Petitioner cites Geagan’s teaching that the “resulting
`‘seamed’ stream can be provided from the proxy to one or more of the
`clients.” Id. at 29 (quoting Ex. 1009, 8:43–50). For the recited
`“determining,” Petitioner contends an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have
`understood that such a ‘determination’ step would be implemented in order
`to match a particular ‘requesting client’ with a particular ‘stream/connection’
`as ‘identified’ for a particular ‘buffer.’” Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 308).
`Petitioner concedes that Geagan does not teach the “pre-configured
`playout history (PH) buffer” under the claim construction for this limitation
`adopted by the court in the California litigation.3 Pet. 30. Thus, Petitioner
`
`
`3 Petitioner purports to make this concession only “under the narrowest
`construction, as adopted by the District Court for the Central District of
`California,” which is
`a buffer that acts as a form of dynamic cache of fixed size that
`advances with a live SM object in storing data packets that
`comprise the last few seconds of the live SM object, and that is
`manually configured before the live SM object is requested and
`permanently maintained in memory thereafter.
`Pet. 30; Ex. 1007, 22–25. We agree with Patent Owner (PO Resp. 16–17 &
`n.2), however, that Petitioner does not purport to show that Geagan alone
`teaches this limitation implicitly, inherently, or under any other claim
`construction. As such, we read Petitioner’s obviousness contentions in this
`ground as also relying necessarily on Vishlitzky for teaching the recited
`“pre-configured playout history (PH) buffer.” And, as stated above, we need
`not construe this (or any other) limitation in order to dispose of the instant
`case. See supra § II.C.
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`cites Vishlitzky’s teaching of allocating server RAM in various stream
`servers to service client requests for video data related to a popular movie.
`Pet. 31–34 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1010, Abstr., 4:55–5:6, 22:10–17, Figs. 2,
`16). According to Petitioner,
`Vishlitzky teaches that “the block of data in the RAM of each
`of the four stream servers . . . is a sliding ‘window’ into the
`movie” wherein “[n]ew data are added to each window, and old
`data are removed from each window, at the rate at which data
`are delivered to the network clients viewing the movie” such
`that “[t]he block of data providing such a sliding window, for
`example, is maintained as a simple circular queue.”
`Id. at 33 (quoting Ex. 1010, 22:18–24) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 316). Petitioner
`also notes Vishlitzky’s teaching that “it is advantageous to initially allocate
`large amounts of random access memory of the stream servers to the popular
`movies” due to the likelihood that “more than one client request for the same
`RAM window of the movie” would be received. Id. at 33–34 (quoting
`Ex. 1010, 22:3–9, 24:47–50).
`Petitioner contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it
`obvious to implement Geagan’s buffer as a “pre-configured playout history
`(PH) buffer” in light of Vishlitzky because “Vishlitzky teaches that it is
`advantageous to pre-configure a playout buffer by allocating and indefinitely
`maintaining sufficient random access memory at Geagan’s proxy to service
`a popular stream such as Geagan’s popular live-streaming content.” Pet. 34
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 318).
`Petitioner additionally cites Vishlitzky to teach the recitation
`“determining whether said first request can be partially serviced from a pre-
`configured playout history (PH) buffer.” See Pet. 35–36. Applying
`teachings regarding Vishlitzky’s admission control program, Petitioner
`
`22
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`draws a distinction between requests for popular movies, which are “pre-
`configured” in a buffer, and requests for unpopular movies, which are “non
`pre-configured.” See id. To explain its contentions, Petitioner provides an
`annotated and excerpted version of Vishlitzky’s Figure 17, reproduced
`below.
`
`
`
`Id. at 35. In this annotated and excerpted version of Vishlitzky’s Figure 17,
`Petitioner has highlighted in red how it maps the recited “determining” step
`of claim 1 to step 171 in Vishlitzky’s admission control program, where a
`determination is made whether the client is requesting a popular movie.
`Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1010, 23:5–13, Fig. 17). If so, Petitioner notes that the
`procedure eventually moves to Vishlitzky’s method step 176 (“Assign Client
`Request to the Indexed PC”), which Petitioner highlights in blue and asserts
`as teaching the servicing of a request from a pre-configured buffer. Id. If
`not, the procedure moves to Vishlitzky’s method step 172 (“Do Other
`Processes”), which Petitioner highlights in green and asserts as teaching the
`servicing of a request from a non pre-configured buffer. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1010, 23:5–19, Fig. 17). Petitioner notes that Vishlitzky’s step 172
`relates to Vishlitzky’s standard process for fetching a movie. See id. at 40–
`41 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1010, 17:30–42, Fig. 9). In this way, Petitioner
`contends that a “non pre-configured PH buffer” is created at the proxy by
`
`23
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`live-streaming content at the time of a request for an unpopular live stream.
`Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 350).
`Claim 1 f