`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