throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 13
`Entered: February 24, 2021
`
`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.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`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”). Petitioner filed a Declaration of Dr. Kevin
`
`Negus (Ex. 1002) with its Petition. Patent Owner, Sound View Innovations,
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`LLC (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim.
`
`Resp.”). With our authorization (Paper 9), Petitioner filed a Reply
`
`(Paper 10, “Pet. Reply”) and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 11, “PO
`
`Sur-reply”) directed to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding collateral
`
`estoppel and 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) in the Preliminary Response.
`
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`
`review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information
`
`in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`
`claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute
`
`an inter partes review as to claims 1–3, 5–7, 13–15, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27,
`
`and 29 of the ’796 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`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.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`The parties identify the following district court actions related to the
`
`’796 patent (Pet., at vi–vii; Paper 5, 1–2):
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. DISH Network LLC, No. 1:19-cv-
`
`03707 (D. Colo. filed Dec. 30, 2019) (“the underlying litigation”);
`
`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 Hulu litigation”);
`
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. AMC Networks, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-
`
`00145 (D. Del. filed Jan. 25, 2019; terminated Apr. 24, 2020) (“the AMC
`
`litigation”);
`
`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);
`
`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).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`C.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`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, which are configured as a conventional server having
`
`processing capabilities, including a central processing unit (not 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
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`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. 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.
`
`The ’796 patent issued from an application that was filed May 15,
`
`2000. Id., code (22). As discussed below, Petitioner attempts to establish
`
`that, at a minimum, its asserted references qualify as prior art relative to the
`
`May 15, 2000, filing date of the application (i.e., the earliest possible
`
`effective filing date).
`
`
`
`D.
`
`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
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`from claim 20; and claim 29 depends from claim 27. Claim 1 is illustrative
`
`of the challenged claims and recites:
`
`In a network having a content server which hosts a
`1.
`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.
`
`Id. at 12:16–35.
`
`
`
`E.
`
`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,
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`Sydney, Australia, Nov. 8–12, 1998, pp. 779–84 (Ex. 1012,
`“Zheng”).
`
`
`
`F.
`
`The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–3, 5–7, 13–15, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27,
`
`and 29 of the ’796 patent on the following grounds (Pet. 1):
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`References
`
`1–3, 5–7, 13–15, 18,
`20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29
`
`1–3, 5–7, 13–15, 18,
`20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29
`
`
`
`103(a)1
`
`Geagan, Vishlitzky
`
`103(a)
`
`Geagan, Vishlitzky, Zheng
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`We now consider Petitioner’s asserted grounds and Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments in the Preliminary Response to determine whether Petitioner has
`
`met the “reasonable likelihood” standard for institution under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a).
`
`
`
`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).
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`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.2 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`We also recognize that prior art references must be “considered together
`
`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)).
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Citing testimony from Dr. Negus, Petitioner contends a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art 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). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s
`
`definition of the level of ordinary skill at this time.
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art without the instances of the qualifier “at
`
`least,” which introduces ambiguity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`
`2 The present record does not include any evidence of secondary
`considerations of nonobviousness.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`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. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition
`
`comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the
`
`teachings of the ’796 patent and the asserted prior art.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`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).
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`Petitioner summarizes, but does not necessarily propose, certain
`
`constructions for various terms (e.g., “helper server,” “live streaming media
`
`broadcast object,” and “pre-configured playout history buffer”) that were
`
`either adopted by the court or proposed by Patent Owner in the Hulu
`
`litigation and the AMC litigation. See Pet. 5–7. Petitioner also notes that it
`
`applied a construction of “non pre-configured playout history buffer” that
`
`negates certain aspects of the summarized “pre-configured playout history
`
`buffer” constructions. See id. at 7. Petitioner further contends that the term
`
`“partially servicing” needs no construction. See id. at 7–8.
`
`Patent Owner proposes that we adopt its proposed construction for
`
`“pre-configured playout history buffer” from the underlying litigation.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 5–12. Patent Owner also contends we should adopt the
`
`Board’s prior construction of “helper server” from IPR2018-01023 and
`
`IPR2020-00969 even though those cases challenged a different patent. Id. at
`
`12–14. Patent Owner further puts forth an interpretation of “receiving a first
`
`request . . . at one of said plurality of HSs. Id. at 14–18. Patent Owner
`
`additionally contends that the preambles of independent claims 1, 15, 20,
`
`and 27 are limiting. Id. at 32–35.
`
`
`
`1. Whether the Preambles of Independent Claims 1, 15, 20, and 27
`are Limiting
`
`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 contends
`
`that the preamble of each independent claim is limiting because, inter alia, it
`
`“defines the structure of the claim by reciting a network having ‘a content
`
`server which hosts [a plurality of] live streaming media (SM) objects,’ ‘a
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`plurality of helper[ servers] (HSs),’ and ‘a plurality of clients’” and “[t]he
`
`body of the claim relies on this recited structure in the preamble and depends
`
`on it for antecedent basis.” Prelim. Resp. 33 (quoting claim 1) (emphases
`
`omitted) (alterations added).
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we agree with Patent Owner. Among
`
`other things, “a preamble may be limiting if: it recites essential structure or
`
`steps; claims depend on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent
`
`basis; [or] the preamble is essential to understand limitations or terms in the
`
`claim body.” Georgetown Rail Equip. Co. v. Holland L.P., 867 F.3d 1229,
`
`1236 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal quotations and alterations omitted). In this
`
`case, all of the challenged independent claims rely on the preambles to set
`
`forth and give meaning to the recited “plurality of live streaming multimedia
`
`(SM) broadcast objects,” “plurality of helper servers (HSs),” and “plurality
`
`of clients.” See Ex. 1001, 12:16–19, 13:57–60, 14:36–39, 15:12–15. Thus,
`
`for purposes of this Decision, we determine that the preambles of
`
`independent claims 1, 15, 20, and 27 are limiting.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Interpretation of “Servicing” and
`“Partially Servicing” in the Geagan–Vishlitzky–Zheng Ground
`
`Petitioner puts forth its obviousness ground based on Geagan,
`
`Vishlitzky, and Zheng to the extent that various “servicing” and “partially
`
`servicing” limitations in the independent claims are interpreted to require
`
`“reducing the startup latency by initially filling the client’s playout buffer as
`
`rapidly as possible with a higher data rate than the data rate at which data
`
`packets are subsequently transmitted.” Pet. 64, 67. Yet Petitioner does not
`
`put forth any analysis to support such an interpretation. In fact, Petitioner’s
`
`primary position appears to be that the “servicing” and “partially servicing”
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`limitations need no construction. Id. at 7–8 (“For purposes of this petition,
`
`Petitioner, supported by Dr. Negus, asserts that this term needs no
`
`construction.”). We additionally note that Patent Owner does not proffer
`
`any construction for “servicing” and “partially servicing” despite asserting
`
`Petitioner’s interpretation in the Geagan–Vishlitzky–Zheng ground is
`
`incorrect. Prelim. Resp. 43. Nor does the record show that any court has
`
`applied Petitioner’s interpretation from the Geagan–Vishlitzky–Zheng
`
`ground.
`
`The preliminary record is devoid of any reason why we should
`
`construe the “servicing” and “partially servicing” limitations to require
`
`“reducing the startup latency by initially filling the client’s playout buffer as
`
`rapidly as possible with a higher data rate than the data rate at which data
`
`packets are subsequently transmitted.” Thus, based on the present record,
`
`we reject Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of “servicing” and “partially
`
`servicing” from the Geagan–Vishlitzky–Zheng ground.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Express Constructions for Other Claim Terms
`
`Based on the current record, we determine that no other terms require
`
`explicit construction.3 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))).
`
`
`
`
`3 We note, however, that the patentee defined explicitly several terms in the
`’796 patent. See Ex. 1001, 3:38–65.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`D. Obviousness Ground Based on Geagan and Vishlitzky
`
`Petitioner contends 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 1–4. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s
`
`contentions. Prelim. Resp. 18–45; PO Sur-reply 1–4.
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Geagan
`
`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
`
`applied to live broadcasts of streaming content delivered via the Internet. Id.
`
`at 1:9–10. Figure 2 of Geagan is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`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 the 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. 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. Again referring to
`
`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
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Petitioner contends Geagan qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e) based on its filing date. Pet. 9. On the present record, we have no
`
`evidence of an invention date other than the earliest possible effective filing
`
`date of the challenged claims. For purposes of this Decision, we determine
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`that Geagan qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Geagan’s
`
`filing date of June 10, 1999, is before the earliest effective filing date of the
`
`challenged claims, which is May 15, 2000. Ex. 1001, code (22); Ex. 1009,
`
`code (22).
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Vishlitzky
`
`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 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 data
`
`network for the transfer of video data streams.” Id., code (57). Figure 2 of
`
`Vishlitzky is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`Figure 16 is a schematic diagram showing “movie-on demand” service to
`
`numerous network clients simultaneously viewing different portions of a
`
`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:
`
`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.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`Figure 17 of Vishlitzky is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 17 is a flowchart of a procedure 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 unpopular movie (step 171), other processes
`
`are performed, such as a standard prefetching technique. Id. at 23:8–17.
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`Petitioner contends Vishlitzky qualifies as prior art under, inter alia,
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on its issue date. Pet. 13. For purposes of this
`
`Decision, we determine that Vishlitzky qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) because Vishlitzky’s issue date of April 7, 1998, is more than one
`
`year before the filing date of the challenged claims, which is May 15, 2000.
`
`Ex. 1001, code (22); Ex. 1010, code (45).
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Claim 1
`
`a. Preamble and Claim Limitations
`
`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[.]
`
`Ex. 1001, 12:16–23. As discussed above, we have determined the preamble
`
`is limiting. See supra § II.C.1. To explain its contentions regarding the
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`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.”
`
`21
`
`

`

`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).
`
`Patent Owner argues that Geagan does not teach a method of reducing
`
`start-up latency. Prelim. Resp. 35–38. Patent Owner’s argument focuses on
`
`certain of Petitioner’s statements with reference to Geagan regarding various
`
`transport protocols. Id. at 37 (citing Pet. 25–26). Patent Owner argues that
`
`these statements regarding transport protocols are not related to start-up
`
`latency. See id. at 37–38.
`
`Although we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s discussion of
`
`transport protocols (see Pet. 25–26) does not relate necessarily to start-up
`
`latency, we are persuaded, at this stage of the proceeding, that certain other
`
`of Petitioner’s contentions do. In particular, Petitioner cites Geagan’s use of
`
`buffered content at a proxy server in close proximity to a client as a means to
`
`reduce start-up latency.4 See id. at 26 (quoting Ex. 1009, 8:27–36) (citing
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 264–265). This is commensurate with one of the methods
`
`disclosed in the ’796 patent for reducing start-up latency. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:28–31 (“[B]y servicing the request from the HS 56, as opposed
`
`to the content server 51, start-up latency is further reduced given the co-
`
`location of HS 56 and client 53.”). Thus, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`
`showing based on Geagan.
`
`
`4 We further discuss Petitioner’s contentions regarding buffers with respect
`to the “determining” step of claim 1 below.
`
`22
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01276
`Patent 6,757,796 B1
`
`Patent Owner does not otherwise dispute Petitioner’s analysis of the
`
`preamble at this time. Based on the present record, we are persuaded that
`
`Geagan teaches the recited “content server” (i.e., server 12), “network” (i.e.,
`
`network 20), “helper servers (HSs)” (i.e., proxy 22 and proxy 34), and
`
`“clients” (i.e., users 10, 16, and 32). See, e.g., Ex. 1009, 9:50–56, Fig. 2.
`
`We also are persuaded that Geagan teaches the distribution of live streaming
`
`content from server 12 to users 10, 16, and 32 via proxies 22 and 34. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1009, 1:5–10, 8:27–32, Fig. 2. Thus, we find Geagan teaches the
`
`preamble of claim 1.
`
`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). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis of the “receiving”
`
`limitation at this time. We are persuaded, on this record, that Geagan
`
`teaches receiving a request for streaming multimedia at the proxy (i.e., “one

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket