Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 39
`Entered: January 24, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`STRATOSAUDIO, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-01303
`Patent 8,688,028 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, HYUN J. JUNG, and KEVIN C. TROCK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`A. Background and Summary
`Petitioner Hyundai Motor America filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`requesting inter partes review of claims 11–20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’028 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311(a).
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01303
`Patent 8,688,028 B2
`On January 26, 2022, we instituted an inter partes review as to all
`challenged claims on all grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.
`Paper 9 (“Decision on Institution” or “Dec. on Inst.”). Patent Owner
`StratosAudio, Inc. filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 18, “PO Resp.”),
`Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 22, “Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a
`Sur-Reply (Paper 27, “Sur-Reply”). With our authorization provided by
`email, the parties also filed supplemental briefs addressing certain briefing
`submitted in related district court litigation. See Papers 33 (“Pet. Supp.
`Br.”), 34 (“PO Supp. Br.”); Exs. 1031, 1032.
`A combined oral hearing with Case IPR2021-01305 was held on
`October 24, 2022, and a transcript of the hearing is included in the record
`(Paper 38, “Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons that
`follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 11–20 of the ’028 patent are unpatentable.
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’028 patent is the subject of the following
`pending district court cases: StratosAudio, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of
`America, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-10524 (E.D. Mich.), and StratosAudio, Inc.
`v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 2:22-cv-01712 (C.D. Cal.). See
`Pet. 2–3; Paper 5, 1; Paper 32, 1. Petitioner filed a petition challenging
`claims of a patent related to the ’028 patent in Case IPR2021-01305
`(instituted), and petitions challenging claims of other patents asserted in one
`or more of the district court cases in Cases IPR2021-01267 (instituted) and
`IPR2021-01371 (instituted). Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01303
`Patent 8,688,028 B2
`(“Volkswagen”) filed a petition challenging claims 11, 14–16, and 18 of
`the ’028 patent in Case IPR2021-00716 (instituted, “the Volkswagen IPR”)1
`and petitions challenging claims of other patents asserted in one or more of
`the district court cases in IPR2021-00712 (instituted), IPR2021-00717
`(denied), IPR2021-00718 (denied), IPR2021-00719 (denied),
`IPR2021-00720 (instituted), and IPR2021-00721 (instituted). Various
`parties filed petitions and motions for joinder to certain of the instituted
`proceedings, which were granted, in Cases IPR2022-00203, IPR2022-00204,
`IPR2022-00205, and IPR2022-00224.
`
`
`C. The ’028 Patent
`The ’028 patent discloses “[a] broadcast response system [that]
`provides, e.g., a radio broadcast listener with the ability to obtain media
`content such as music or speech while listening to the radio.” Ex. 1001,
`code (57). “From the early days of FM broadcast transmission, stations have
`included ancillary signals such as background music or reading services for
`the blind along with a main carrier signal.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 26–28. “The
`most current and widely used data transmission standard is the United States
`Radio Broadcast Data Systems (‘RBDS’) standard” in which a system
`“broadcast[s] a variety of program-related information,” such as station “call
`letters, station format, traffic alerts and scrolling text messages,” on a
`“subcarrier of a standard FM broadcast channel.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 32–53.
`
`
`1 The Volkswagen IPR involves different prior art from the references
`asserted in this proceeding. In a concurrently entered final written decision
`in the Volkswagen IPR, we determine that Volkswagen has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 11, 14–16, and 18 of the
`’028 patent are unpatentable.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01303
`Patent 8,688,028 B2
`The ’028 patent states that “[b]roadcasters using the RBDS standard can
`distribute information to a large number of users,” but “the standard does not
`allow individual users to respond to the broadcast information.” Id. at col. 2,
`ll. 26–29. For example, a user listening to the radio may like a particular
`song that he or she would like to purchase, but “must write down or
`remember the identifying information and then go to a store or online
`retailer to purchase the media.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 30–37. The ’028 patent
`purportedly solves that problem by allowing the user to respond to the
`broadcast and purchase media content. Id. at col. 2, ll. 53–58.
`The ’028 patent includes Figures 1A–D, which are reproduced
`together below.
`
`
`Figures 1A–D depict radio station 140, radio receiver 100, and various other
`devices. Id. at col. 4, ll. 22–25. Radio automation or CD playback system
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01303
`Patent 8,688,028 B2
`142 “extract[s] information about songs or a radio program” from various
`sources and provides playlist information to Automatic Purchase System
`(APS) server 144, which matches the extracted information with information
`in a database of audio files available to download. Id. at col. 5, ll. 41–52.
`If such a file is available, APS server 144 provides download information to
`RBDS/RDS encoder 148. Id. at col. 5, ll. 52–55. RBDS/RDS encoder 148
`then “transmits the RBDS/RDS information using the 57 khz RBDS/RDS
`subcarrier 170 to the FM transmission system 146. The RBDS/RDS
`subcarrier signal 170 is mixed by the FM transmission system 146 with the
`FM baseband program signal 172 and any other subcarriers.” Id. at col. 5,
`ll. 57–62. “The FM transmission system 146 then transmits an FM [radio
`frequency (RF)] signal 162 which is received by the radio receiver 100.”
`Id. at col. 5, ll. 62–63.
`The ’028 patent describes various types of information that can be
`provided to the radio user using the data subcarrier signal, such as a song
`title, artist, album name, purchase price of the song, and IP address for the
`location where the digital version of the song is stored. Id. at col. 3,
`ll. 39–45, col. 5, ll. 4–13, 48–49. A “reference number” representing the
`information stored in a lookup table accessed by APS server 144 “can also
`be employed for ease of implementation.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 42–48.
`RF demodulator section 102 “splits the [received FM RF signal]
`into an audio signal and a data signal.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 39–43. Audio
`demodulator amplifier section 108 receives the audio signal and converts it
`to audio signal 128 that can be output on speaker 118. Id. at col. 4,
`ll. 35–38, 53–54. RBDS/RDS decoder 106 receives the data signal and
`processes it to display information to the user on scrolling display 110. Id.
`at col. 4, ll. 39–47, col. 4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 3.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01303
`Patent 8,688,028 B2
`The ’028 patent further describes a process whereby “a user can place
`an order to download a song using the control interface 116” of radio
`receiver 100. Id. at col. 5, ll. 14–15. Radio receiver 100 provides a signal to
`authentication and billing system 152 (e.g., over wireless Internet connection
`156) and, when the purchase is approved, download server 154 provides the
`requested material to radio receiver 100 (e.g., over wireless Internet
`connection 158). Id. at col. 5, ll. 15–40. The ’028 patent discloses that
`“[i]n one embodiment, activity of each sale using the [disclosed] system is
`tracked for the purposes of aggregating data or ‘Data Mining’ for sale to
`interested parties such as trade publications and record companies.” Id. at
`col. 3, ll. 52–55.
`
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Challenged claim 11 of the ’028 patent is independent. Claims 12–20
`each depend directly or indirectly from claim 11. Claim 11 recites (with
`letter designations used in the Petition to refer to the various limitations):
`11. A method for correlating media content identifying
`data with at least one broadcast segment received by a
`communication device, the method comprising:
`[a] receiving a broadcast stream comprising the at least
`one broadcast segment and associated media content;
`[b] receiving a data stream associated with the broadcast
`stream, the data stream comprising, at a minimum, the media
`content identifying data, wherein the media content identifying
`data comprises at least one element;
`[c] extracting the media content identifying data from the
`data stream, associating each media content identifying data
`element with at least one of a plurality of media content;
`[d] storing in an electronic memory of the communication
`device, at a minimum, media content identifying data elements
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01303
`Patent 8,688,028 B2
`into identifying data aggregates, each identifying data aggregate
`associated with at least one of the plurality of media content and
`the at least one broadcast segment, wherein the at least one
`broadcast segment is corollary to the at least one of the plurality
`of media content; and
`[e] providing for presentation of at least a portion of the
`data elements stored in
`the electronic memory of
`the
`communication device, whereby the providing provides selective
`outputting, using an interface, of at least one of the following:
`the media content identifying data, the media content, the
`corollary broadcast segment, a temporal position of the corollary
`broadcast segment of the broadcast stream.
`
`
`E. Evidence
`The pending grounds of unpatentability in the instant inter partes
`review are based on the following prior art:
`U.S. Patent No. 6,925,489 B1, filed Nov. 22, 1999, issued
`Aug. 2, 2005 (Ex. 1010, “Curtin”);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,928 B1, filed Dec. 10, 1999, issued
`Sept. 30, 2003 (Ex. 1006, “Crosby”);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,063,610, issued Nov. 5, 1991 (Ex. 1011,
`“Alwadish”); and
`European Patent No. EP 0 647 377 B2, issued Jan. 7, 1999
`(Ex. 1012, “Koerber”).2
`Petitioner filed a declaration from Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D. (Ex. 1002) with
`its Petition and a reply declaration from Dr. Almeroth (Ex. 1026) with its
`Reply. Patent Owner filed a declaration from John C. Hart, Ph.D.
`
`
`2 We refer to “Koerber” as the English translation of the original patent
`document in German (both filed as Exhibit 1012). Petitioner provided a
`“Certificate of Accuracy” attesting to the accuracy of the translation. See
`Ex. 1012, 1; 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b).
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01303
`Patent 8,688,028 B2
`(Ex. 2020) with its Response. Also submitted as evidence are transcripts of
`the depositions of Dr. Almeroth (Exs. 2018, 2021) and Dr. Hart (Ex. 1029).
`
`
`F. Asserted Grounds
`This inter partes review involves the following grounds of
`unpatentability (Pet. 4):
`Claims Challenged
`11, 13–20
`11, 13–20
`11, 12, 14–16, 18
`12, 16
`
`35 U.S.C. §3 Reference(s)/Basis
`103(a)
`Curtin, Crosby
`103(a)
`Curtin
`103(a)
`Alwadish4
`103(a)
`Alwadish, Koerber
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art for a challenged
`patent, we look to “1) the types of problems encountered in the art; 2) the
`prior art solutions to those problems; 3) the rapidity with which innovations
`are made; 4) the sophistication of the technology; and 5) the educational
`level of active workers in the field.” Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654,
`666–667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Not all such factors may be present in every
`case, and one or more of them may predominate.” Id. at 667.
`
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the challenged claims
`of the ’028 patent have an effective filing date before the effective date of
`the applicable AIA amendment, we refer to the pre-AIA version of
`35 U.S.C. § 103. See Pet. 11.
`4 Petitioner list claims 11, 14, 15, and 18 in “Ground 3” and claims 12 and
`16 in “Ground 4,” both based on obviousness over Alwadish alone. Pet. 4.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01303
`Patent 8,688,028 B2
`Petitioner states that it takes no position on the effective filing date of
`the challenged claims of the ’028 patent, but assumes an effective filing date
`of September 13, 2000, for purposes of the Petition. Pet. 11. Petitioner
`argues in the Petition that a person of ordinary skill in the art at that time
`would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of
`experience in the communications- or broadcast-related industries, or the
`equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice
`versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 34, 40–42).
`In the Decision on Institution, we adopted a slightly different
`definition from the Volkswagen IPR of “a B.S. in computer science or
`electrical engineering (or a related field), and approximately three years of
`experience working in the communications- or Internet-related industries, or,
`alternatively, an advanced degree (such as a master’s degree) in computer
`science or electrical engineering (or a related field),” and encouraged the
`parties to address the issue if they disagreed. Dec. on Inst. 18. Patent
`Owner does not oppose the adopted definition and Petitioner did not address
`the issue in its Reply. See PO Resp. 19. Based on the full record developed
`during trial, including our review of the ’028 patent and the types of
`problems and solutions described in the ’028 patent and cited prior art,
`we maintain the previously adopted definition of the level of ordinary skill
`in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001,
`col. 1, l. 25–col. 2, l. 49 (describing in the “Background” section of
`the ’028 patent various FM broadcast and other communication methods).
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01303
`Patent 8,688,028 B2
`
`B. Claim Interpretation
`We interpret the claims of the challenged patent
`using the same claim construction standard that would be used to
`construe the [claims] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b),
`including construing the [claims] in accordance with the ordinary
`and customary meaning of such [claims] 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) (2020). “In determining the meaning of [a] disputed
`claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record,
`examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the
`prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic
`Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Claim terms
`are given their plain and ordinary meaning as would be 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). 5
`
`
`5 The claim interpretations adopted herein are identical to those set forth in
`the concurrently entered final written decision in the Volkswagen IPR, with
`one exception—we adopt an agreed-upon interpretation of “broadcast
`stream” in the Volkswagen IPR, but need not interpret the term in this
`proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe
`terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the
`construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted)).
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01303
`Patent 8,688,028 B2
`
`1. Preamble of Claim 11
`In the Decision on Institution, we determined based on the record at
`the time that the preamble of claim 11 is limiting because the body of the
`claim refers to the preamble for antecedent basis for the terms “media
`content identifying data,” “at least one broadcast segment,” and
`“communication device.” See Dec. on Inst. 27 n.6; Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell
`Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“When limitations in the
`body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble,
`then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed
`invention.”). Patent Owner agrees, and Petitioner does not argue otherwise
`in its Petition or Reply. See Pet. 20, 39 (arguing that Curtin and Alwadish
`both “disclose[] or teach[] the preamble of Claim 11, to the extent it is
`determined to be limiting”); PO Resp. 36–37. Based on the full trial record,
`we determine that the preamble of claim 11 is limiting.
`
`
`2. “Broadcast Segment”
`In the Decision on Institution, based on the record at the time,
`we interpreted “broadcast segment” as “a distinguishable piece or portion of
`a broadcast stream, such as an individual song, speech, or video,” which had
`been proposed by the petitioner in the Volkswagen IPR. See Dec. on Inst.
`20. Petitioner agrees with that interpretation. Reply 2–4. Patent Owner
`argues that “broadcast segment” instead should be interpreted to mean
`“a discretely identifiable portion of programming as broadcasted.” PO Resp.
`20–22; Sur-Reply 2–6.
`As an initial matter, we note that there is little difference between the
`two interpretations. The preliminary interpretation uses the term
`“distinguishable,” whereas Patent Owner uses “discretely identifiable.” See
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01303
`Patent 8,688,028 B2
`Dec. on Inst. 20; PO Resp. 20. Petitioner acknowledges that “as a matter of
`English language,” there may not be “much of a difference between
`distinguishable and discretely identifiable.” Tr. 7:3–8:9, 11:6–23.
`Similarly, the preliminary interpretation uses the phrase “portion of a
`broadcast stream,” whereas Patent Owner uses “portion of programming as
`broadcasted.” See Dec. on Inst. 20; PO Resp. 20. Petitioner states that there
`is no difference between “of a broadcast stream” and “as broadcasted,” and
`agrees with the use of “as broadcasted.” Tr. 7:19–8:5, 14:10–13.
`The dispute between the parties appears to be in the application of the
`prior art when using Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation. See id. at
`7:3–8:9 (disagreeing with the term “discretely identifiable” “as applied by
`Patent Owner to the prior art”), 11:6–23 (arguing that the issue is how
`“Patent Owner is applying its interpretation to the prior art”); Reply 2–4,
`8–10, 22–24. For example, Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s
`arguments import requirements that broadcast segments differentiate
`between different instances of the same song broadcasted multiple times and
`are tracked for purposes of aggregating data or “data mining.” See Reply
`8–10, 22–24. These alleged requirements, however, are not part of Patent
`Owner’s proposed interpretation. To the extent relevant, we discuss them
`below in our analysis of Petitioner’s obviousness grounds. See infra
`Sections II.D.3.b, II.F.2.b.
`After reviewing the full trial record, we are persuaded that the
`phrasing of Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation is correct, primarily
`because of its use of “as broadcasted.”
`First, by its plain language, a “broadcast segment” is a “segment” of
`a “broadcast.” See Reply 2 (arguing that “the plain meaning of ‘broadcast
`segment’” is “a ‘segment’ of a ‘broadcast’”); Tr. 8:12–25 (Petitioner arguing
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01303
`Patent 8,688,028 B2
`that the plain and ordinary meaning is “a segment or portion of a broadcast
`or some type of transmission”), 10:1–6 (Petitioner agreeing that a “broadcast
`segment” is distinguishable from “others within the broadcast,” such as the
`immediately preceding and subsequent broadcast segments). Our
`preliminary proposed interpretation was that a “broadcast segment” is a
`piece or portion “of a broadcast stream,” but that is already part of the
`claim—limitation 11[a] recites “a broadcast stream comprising the at least
`one broadcast segment” (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s proposed
`interpretation more clearly specifies that a “broadcast segment” is a portion
`of programming “as broadcasted.” See PO Resp. 20. To illustrate, although
`a song can be an example of a “broadcast segment,” the “broadcast segment”
`is not the song in the abstract, but rather the portion of the broadcast that is
`the song. See Tr. 9:2–7 (Petitioner agreeing that the term refers not to
`“a song in the abstract,” but rather “a song that’s part of a broadcast”).
`In other words, an individual song as broadcasted may be an example of a
`“broadcast segment” because the broadcast of the song constitutes a
`discretely identifiable portion of a broadcasting that includes the song. We
`are persuaded that the language of claim 11 supports Patent Owner’s
`proposed interpretation.
`Second, although the Specification of the ’028 patent only uses the
`term “broadcast segment” twice, it provides some support for Patent
`Owner’s view that a “broadcast segment” is a portion of programming
`“as broadcasted.” The Specification discloses:
`[R]adio station 140, using either a standard radio automation
`system for tracking of music content which is being broadcast,
`or a data-enabled audio player, broadcasts audio material and
`synchronously sends RBDS/RDS or similar data to an APS
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01303
`Patent 8,688,028 B2
`server 144 that assigns a unique identifier to each specific
`broadcast segment or song.
`The APS server 144 compares the broadcast segment
`identifier with a database 150 of audio available for purchase. If
`the broadcasted audio is available, the APS server 144
`incorporates station call letter information, and an audio
`download location such as IP address and a file name into a data
`stream that is inserted into a radio station’s broadcast using
`RBDS/RDS or similar technology. The information identifying
`the audio selected by the listener or user is routed to the APS
`Data Server and passed on to the location where a digital version
`of the audio content is stored and available for transfer to the end
`user. The user’s radio receiver 100 receives and recognizes the
`encoded RBDS/RDS or other data and presents it on the radio
`display 110 notifying the user that the audio is available for
`purchase.
`Ex. 1001, col. 5, l. 64–col. 6, l. 16 (emphasis added). Thus, in the exemplary
`embodiment described above, the “broadcast segment” is a portion of the
`audio content being broadcasted. 6 See id.
`Based on the full trial record, we interpret “broadcast segment” to
`mean “a discretely identifiable portion of programming as broadcasted.”
`
`6 The “broadcast segment” described in the Specification also has an
`assigned “unique identifier” as part of the broadcast. Ex. 1001, col. 5,
`l. 64–col. 6, l. 2. Patent Owner contends that the unique identifiers are “data
`that enables a unique identification of each specific broadcast segment,”
`which matches the language of dependent claim 16 (i.e., “data that enables a
`unique identification of the least one broadcast segment”). See PO Resp. 11.
`Also, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation, which
`uses the phrase “discretely identifiable,” is improper because it “would
`render [the ‘unique identification’ language of claim 16] redundant and
`improperly capture claim 16’s scope”. See Reply 2–3. We disagree. Claim
`16 provides a further limit on what the “data stream” of claim 11
`comprises—namely, it “further comprises data that enables a unique
`identification of the at least one broadcast segment.” Patent Owner’s
`proposed interpretation, by contrast, correctly pertains to what the
`“broadcast segment” is. See Sur-Reply 3.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01303
`Patent 8,688,028 B2
`
`3. “Media Content”
`In the Decision on Institution, based on the record at the time,
`we interpreted “media content” as “any form of media content that, when
`translated from the signal-form in which it is transmitted, is discernible to
`humans.” Dec. on Inst. 20. The parties do not dispute that interpretation,
`which we adopt based on the full trial record. See PO Resp. 22; Reply 4.
`
`4. “Receiving a Broadcast Stream Comprising the At Least One Broadcast
`Segment and Associated Media Content”
`In the Decision on Institution, we noted our previous analysis in the
`Volkswagen IPR and encouraged the parties to address in their papers the
`interpretation of the full “receiving” limitation in claim 11. Dec. on Inst. 20.
`Specifically, in the Volkswagen IPR, the petitioner had
`read the claim language as encompassing the same underlying
`content (e.g., a song) in two different forms—the “broadcast
`segment” being a distinguishable piece or portion of the
`broadcast stream itself, which is in signal-form, and the “media
`content” being the content after it has been translated from
`signal-form into a form that is discernible to humans.
`IPR2021-00716, Paper 16, 22–23. We stated that, based on the record at the
`time, that reading appeared to be consistent with the Specification of
`the ’028 patent. Id. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art “would understand the clause consistent with the Board’s finding,
`with the qualification” that we should adopt Patent Owner’s proposed
`interpretation of “broadcast segment.” PO Resp. 23–24. Petitioner agrees
`that our preliminary interpretation in the Volkswagen IPR “is consistent with
`how a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood th[e] claim
`term in view of the [S]pecification.” Reply 5. Based on the full trial record,
`we maintain our earlier determination in the Volkswagen IPR for the
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01303
`Patent 8,688,028 B2
`“receiving” limitation and adopt Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation of
`“broadcast segment” for the reasons explained above. See supra Section
`II.B.2; IPR2021-00716, Paper 16, 22–23.
`
`
`5. “Associate” Terms
`Claim 11 recites “a broadcast stream comprising the at least one
`broadcast segment and associated media content,” “receiving a data stream
`associated with the broadcast stream,” “extracting the media content
`identifying data from the data stream, associating each media content
`identifying data element with at least one of a plurality of media content,”
`and “each identifying data aggregate associated with at least one of the
`plurality of media content and the at least one broadcast segment” (emphasis
`added). Claim 18 recites “detecting a selection input associated with the
`presentation of the stored data” (emphasis added). We refer to these as the
`“associate” terms.
`After our Decision on Institution, the district court issued a Claim
`Construction Order construing the terms “associated,” “associating,” and
`“associating each media content identifying data element with at least one of
`a plurality of media content” to each have their “[p]lain and ordinary
`meaning.” Ex. 3003, 1–2. During the district court proceedings, Patent
`Owner proposed the “[p]lain and ordinary meaning” construction, whereas
`Petitioner argued that the terms were indefinite. Ex. 3001, 1–2.
`In this proceeding, Patent Owner argues in its Response that the
`“associate” terms “are used in their ordinary manner in the context of the
`’028 patent to mean an implemented link between two or more items (such
`as data, broadcast segments, and media content)” where the link is “formal,”
`“intentional,” and “implement[ed] by claim 11.” PO Resp. 24–25 (citing
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01303
`Patent 8,688,028 B2
`Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 58–59); Sur-Reply 7–8. According to Patent Owner, this is
`different than a merely “conceptual” link; the term “related,” for example,
`also is used in the Specification of the ’028 patent and does not necessarily
`require “a connection that is implemented in a system.” PO Resp. 24–25
`(citing Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 24, 35–39, col. 8, ll. 7–12, col. 11, ll. 13–17,
`27–30). Petitioner responds that the terms should be given their “plain
`meaning, which merely indicates some relationship between items,” arguing
`that the requirement of an implemented “link” is not supported by the
`Specification, file history, or extrinsic evidence. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1026
`¶¶ 21–22).
`We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. Patent Owner does not
`point to—and we do not find—any language in the claims requiring that the
`recited associations be implemented in a particular way, such as by a system
`storing a link. Rather, each limitation merely recites that one item is
`“associate[d]” with another: “broadcast segment” with “media content,”
`“data stream” with “broadcast stream,” “each media content identifying data
`element” with “at least one of a plurality of media content,” “each
`identifying data aggregate” with “at least one of the plurality of media
`content and the at least one broadcast segment,” and “selection” with “the
`presentation of the stored data.”
`Nor does the Specification define or use the term “associated” in a
`manner indicating that the term should be limited to require a formal link
`implemented by the disclosed system. To the contrary, in every instance, the
`Specification uses the term “associated” broadly to refer to two items related
`to each other in some manner; for example, consistent with the language of
`claim 11, the Specification explains how a broadcast may have an
`“associated” data stream providing information about what is being played.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01303
`Patent 8,688,028 B2
`See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 31–33 (“storage server 154 at a source location
`. . . uploads the requested audio to the routing address associated with the
`user’s cell phone account identifier”), col. 7, ll. 27–33 (“[a]utomotive radios
`equipped with the APS module 202 and associated technologies . . . send a
`purchase request (or interactive response) complete with [other information]
`accompanying the associated broadcast”), col. 8, ll. 7–14 (“The user can
`also receive offers or hyperlinks posted on a personal web site . . . .
`Associated books, magazine articles, merchandise and event information can
`also be posted for the user to purchase using the APS.”), col. 12, ll. 13–20
`(“television adapters equipped with the APS module 302 and associated
`technologies can use a wireless interface 318 to send a purchase request (or
`interactive response) complete with [other information] derived from the
`RBDS/RDS data string accompanying the associated broadcast”) (emphasis
`added); see also Tr. 66:21–67:8 (Patent Owner agreeing that the
`Specification does not describe expressly a formal, implemented link). The
`mere fact that the Specification also uses “related” in other contexts does not
`demonstrate that the patentee intended for there to be a meaningful
`difference between “related” and “associated.”
`We interpret the “associate” terms to not require a formal link
`implemented by the method of claim 11 as Patent Owner argues, and
`conclude that no further interpretation is necessary to decide the issues
`presented during trial. 7 See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.
`
`
`
`7 Given the analysis above, we need not determine whether Patent Owner’s
`proposed interpretation in this proceeding is inconsistent with arguments it
`made in a related district court case, as Petitioner contends. See Pet. Supp.
`Br. 2–3; PO Supp. Br. 2–3.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01303
`Patent 8,688,028 B2
`
`6. “Corollary”
`In the Decision on Institution, we encouraged the parties to address in
`their papers the interpretation of the term “corollary” in claim 11. Dec. on
`Inst. 20. Patent Owner argues that the term means “correlated,” and
`Petitioner agrees. See PO Resp. 25; Reply 6. We conclude that no
`interpretation of the term is