`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 60
`Entered: January 24, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`STRATOSAUDIO, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 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 Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. filed a Petition
`(Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 11 and 15–18 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,903,307 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’307 patent”) pursuant to
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`35 U.S.C. § 311(a). On October 25, 2021, we instituted an inter partes
`review as to all challenged claims on all grounds of unpatentability asserted
`in the Petition. Paper 16 (“Decision on Institution” or “Dec. on Inst.”).
`Patent Owner StratosAudio, Inc. filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 28,
`“PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 33, “Reply”), and Patent Owner
`filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 37, “Sur-Reply”). A combined oral hearing with
`Case IPR2021-00716 was held on July 21, 2022, and a transcript of the
`hearing is included in the record (Paper 49, “Tr.”).
`Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Subaru of America, Inc., and
`Volvo Car USA, LLC filed a motion for joinder and a petition in
`Case IPR2022-00205, which were granted, and, therefore, were joined as
`petitioners in this proceeding. Paper 36. We adjusted the time of pendency
`in this proceeding beyond one year after institution due to joinder. Paper 55.
`The proceeding was terminated as to Mazda Motor of America, Inc.
`and Volvo Car USA, LLC. See Papers 48, 54. In an Order entered
`concurrently with this Decision, the proceeding also is terminated as to
`Subaru of America, Inc.
`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 and 15–18 of the ’307 patent are unpatentable.
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’307 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. 1;
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`Paper 5, 1; Paper 58, 1–2. Petitioner filed a petition challenging claims of a
`patent related to the ’307 patent in Case IPR2021-00716 (instituted), and
`petitions challenging claims of other patents asserted in one or more of the
`district court cases in Cases IPR2021-00717 (denied), IPR2021-00718
`(denied), IPR2021-00719 (denied), IPR2021-00720 (instituted), and
`IPR2021-00721 (instituted). Hyundai Motor America (“Hyundai”) filed a
`petition challenging claims 11–20 of the ’307 patent in Case IPR2021-01305
`(instituted, “the Hyundai IPR”)1 and petitions challenging claims of other
`patents asserted in one or more of the district court cases in
`Cases IPR2021-01267 (instituted), IPR2021-01303 (instituted), and
`IPR2021-01371 (instituted). Various parties filed petitions and motions
`for joinder to certain of the instituted proceedings, which were granted, in
`Cases IPR2022-00203, IPR2022-00204, and IPR2022-00224.
`
`
`C. The ’307 Patent
`The ’307 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. 29–31. “The
`most current and widely used data transmission standard is the United States
`Radio Broadcast Data Systems (‘RBDS’) standard” in which a system
`
`
`1 The Hyundai IPR involves different prior art from the references asserted
`in this proceeding. In a concurrently entered final written decision in the
`Hyundai IPR, we determine that Hyundai has shown by a preponderance of
`the evidence that claims 11–20 of the ’307 patent are unpatentable.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`“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. 35–56.
`The ’307 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. 28–31. 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. 32–39. The ’307 patent
`purportedly solves that problem by allowing the user to respond to the
`broadcast and purchase media content. Id. at col. 2, ll. 55–60.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`The ’307 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
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`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 ’307 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.
`The ’307 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 ’307 patent discloses that
`“[i]n one embodiment, activity of each sale using the [disclosed] system is
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`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 ’307 patent is independent. Claims 15–18
`each depend directly from claim 11. Claim 11 recites (with letter
`designations used in the Petition to refer to the various limitations):
`11. A system for correlating media content identifying
`data with at least one broadcast segment received by a
`communication device, the system comprising:
`[a] a receiver configured to receive a broadcast stream
`comprising the at least one broadcast segment and associated
`media content, [b] the receiver further configured to receive 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] at least one computer processor configured to extract
`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] an electronic memory of the communication device
`configured to store, at a minimum, media content identifying
`data elements 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, [e] wherein
`the at least one broadcast segment is corollary to the at least one
`of the plurality of media content; and
`[f] an output configured to present at least a portion of the
`data elements stored in
`the electronic memory of
`the
`communication device to provide selective outputting using an
`interface of at least one of the following: the media content
`identifying data, the media content, the corollary broadcast
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`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. 6,317,784 B1, filed Sept. 29, 1998, issued
`Nov. 13, 2001 (Ex. 1005, “Mackintosh”); and
`U.S. Patent No. 5,579,537, issued Nov. 26, 1996
`(Ex. 1004, “Takahisa”).
`Petitioner filed a declaration from Vijay Madisetti, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003) with its
`Petition and a reply declaration from Dr. Madisetti (Ex. 1018) with its
`Reply. Patent Owner filed a declaration from John C. Hart, Ph.D.
`(Ex. 2019) with its Response. Also submitted as evidence are transcripts of
`the depositions of Dr. Madisetti (Ex. 2021) and Dr. Hart (Ex. 1019).
`
`
`F. Asserted Grounds
`This inter partes review involves the following grounds of
`unpatentability (Pet. 3):
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §2
`11, 15–18
`103(a)
`11, 15, 16, 18
`102(b)
`17
`103(a)
`
`Reference/Basis
`Mackintosh
`Takahisa
`Takahisa
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the
`challenged claims of the ’307 patent have an effective filing date before the
`effective date of the applicable AIA amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA
`versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Pet. 3; PO Resp. 16.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`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.
`Petitioner argues that at the time of the ’307 patent (September 2000),
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “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).” Pet. 7
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 44); see Ex. 1003 ¶ 29. Patent Owner applies the same
`definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 16 (citing
`Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 58–59). Based on the full record developed during trial,
`including our review of the ’307 patent and the types of problems and
`solutions described in the ’307 patent and cited prior art, we agree with
`Petitioner’s proposed 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. 28–col. 2, l. 51 (describing in the “Background” section of the ’307 patent
`various FM broadcast and other communication methods).
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 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). 3
`
`
`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
`
`
`3 The claim interpretations adopted herein are identical to those set forth in
`the concurrently entered final written decision in the Hyundai IPR, with one
`exception—we need not interpret “broadcast stream” in that proceeding.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`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.5; 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. 49 (arguing that “[r]egardless of whether
`the preamble is limiting, it is disclosed by Mackintosh”); PO Resp. 33–34.
`Based on the full trial record, we determine that the preamble of claim 11 is
`limiting.
`
`
`2. “Broadcast Stream”
`Petitioner argues that “broadcast stream” should be interpreted to
`mean
`“any media conveyance methodology that conveys information
`in the form of a signal,” including, for example, data,
`information, or programming distributed over AM/FM radio,
`digital radio, the Internet, satellite, cable, analog television,
`digital television, or the like.
`Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not object to Petitioner’s proposed interpretation.
`PO Resp. 17. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed interpretation, which is
`consistent with the Specification of the ’307 patent. See Pet. 8–10 (citing
`Ex. 1001, col. 1, l. 29–col. 2, l. 51, col. 4, ll. 16–21, col. 10, l. 56–col. 11,
`l. 20).
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`3. “Broadcast Segment”
`In the Decision on Institution, based on the record at the time,
`we agreed with and adopted Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of
`“broadcast segment” as “a distinguishable piece or portion of a broadcast
`stream, such as an individual song, speech, or video.” See Dec. on Inst.
`20–23; Pet. 10. Patent Owner argues that “broadcast segment” instead
`should be interpreted to mean “a discretely identifiable portion of
`programming as broadcasted.” PO Resp. 17–20.
`As an initial matter, we note—and the parties agree—that there is
`little difference between the parties’ proposed interpretations. Petitioner’s
`proposed interpretation uses the term “distinguishable,” whereas Patent
`Owner uses “discretely identifiable.” See Pet. 10; PO Resp. 17. According
`to Petitioner, however, there is no difference between “distinguishable” and
`“identifiable,” as the terms are “largely interchangeable.” Tr. 11:10–19,
`78:15–20. Similarly, Petitioner’s proposed interpretation uses the phrase
`“portion of a broadcast stream,” whereas Patent Owner uses “portion of
`programming as broadcasted.” See Pet. 10; PO Resp. 17. Petitioner agrees
`that “of a broadcast stream” and “as broadcasted” are “one and the same.”
`Tr. 79:21–80:7.
`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
`10:5–9 (arguing that “[i]t is when [Patent Owner] begin[s] to apply [its]
`construction that the differences become apparent and [Patent Owner is]
`essentially cobbling on additional limitations to that construction”), 80:8–25.
`Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s arguments import four additional
`requirements that are not supported by the claim language or Specification
`of the ’307 patent:
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`(1) each broadcast segment must be “discretely identifiable
`relative to all other ‘broadcast segments’ transmitted” and
`“contextually unique to all others”;
`(2) “a broadcast segment can occur once and only once”;
`(3) each broadcast segment “must have a
`temporal
`component”; and
`(4) broadcast segments must differentiate between different
`instances of the same song being broadcast multiple times
`in a day.
`Reply 2–3 (citations omitted). None of these, however, are part of Patent
`Owner’s proposed interpretation. To the extent relevant, we discuss them
`below in our analysis of Petitioner’s obviousness ground based on
`Mackintosh. See infra Section II.D.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 Tr. 10:24–11:1, 17:20–18:5 (Petitioner agreeing that
`a “broadcast segment” is “a segment of the broadcast” and is, for example,
`“distinguishable from the very next segment and the segment after that”);
`Ex. 2021, 22:20–23:7 (Dr. Madisetti agreeing that the ’307 patent “clearly
`describe[s] an example of a distinguishable piece or portion of the work
`as streamed as an individual song” (emphasis added)). Petitioner’s proposed
`interpretation is 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). See Pet. 10. Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation
`more clearly specifies that a “broadcast segment” is a portion of
`programming “as broadcasted.” See PO Resp. 17. To illustrate, although a
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`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. In other words, “‘[a]n individual song’ as broadcasted may serve
`as one example of a ‘broadcast segment’ because the broadcast of the song
`constitutes a discretely identifiable portion of broadcasting as broadcasted.”
`See id. at 19 (emphasis added); Sur-Reply 9. We are persuaded that the
`language of claim 11 supports Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation.
`Second, although the Specification of the ’307 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
`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.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`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. 4 See id.
`Based on the full trial record, we interpret “broadcast segment” to
`mean “a discretely identifiable portion of programming as broadcasted.”
`
`
`4. “Media Content”
`In the Decision on Institution, based on the record at the time,
`we agreed with and adopted Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of “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. 23. Patent Owner does not object to that interpretation, which we adopt
`based on the full trial record. See PO Resp. 20.
`
`
`5. “Receiver Configured to Receive a Broadcast Stream Comprising the
`At Least One Broadcast Segment and Associated Media Content”
`In the Decision on Institution, based on the record at the time,
`we noted that Petitioner’s proposed interpretations of “broadcast segment”
`and “media content”
`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.
`
`4 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 points to that disclosure as support for
`dependent claim 16, which recites “data that enables a unique identification
`of the least one broadcast segment.” PO Resp. 55–56.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`Dec. on Inst. 22–23. We stated that Petitioner’s reading appeared to be
`consistent with the Specification, but encouraged the parties to address in
`their papers the interpretation of the full “receiver” limitation in claim 11.
`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. 20–22. Petitioner “agrees with the
`Board’s interpretation but disagrees with” Patent Owner’s proposed
`interpretation of “broadcast segment.” Reply 7–8. Based on the full trial
`record, we maintain our earlier determination for the “receiver” limitation
`and adopt Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation of “broadcast segment”
`for the reasons explained above. See supra Section II.B.3.
`
`
`6. “Associate” Terms
`Claim 11 recites “a broadcast stream comprising the at least one
`broadcast segment and associated media content,” receiver that “receive[s]
`a data stream associated with the broadcast stream,” computer processor that
`“extract[s] 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 “an input
`configured to detect a selection 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
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`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
`’307 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 “implemented” by the system of claim 11. PO Resp.
`22–23 (citing Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 71–72). 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 ’307 patent and does not necessarily
`require “a connection that is implemented in a system.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001,
`col. 1, ll. 26, 38–42, col. 8, ll. 7–12, col. 11, ll. 13–17, 27–30). Petitioner
`disagrees, arguing that the terms “refer to two concepts that were
`conceptually connected without the need for a system to store a link” and
`citing other portions of the Specification that use the term “associated.”
`Reply 8–9 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 27–33, col. 8, ll. 12–14; Ex. 1018
`¶¶ 39–41).
`We agree with Petitioner. 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 the 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
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`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.
`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). 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 system of claim 11 as Patent Owner argues, and
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`conclude that no further interpretation is necessary to decide the issues
`presented during trial. 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)).
`
`
`7. “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. 23. Patent Owner argues that the term means “correlated,” and
`Petitioner does not object. See PO Resp. 23; Reply 9. We conclude that no
`interpretation of the term is necessary to decide the issues presented during
`trial. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.
`
`
`C. Legal Standards
`To prevail in its challenges to the patentability of claims 11 and 15–18
`of the ’307 patent, Petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the
`evidence that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). “In an [inter
`partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with
`particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v.
`Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This burden of
`persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l
`Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also In re
`Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(“Where, as here, the only question presented is whether due consideration
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`of the four Graham factors renders a claim or claims obvious, no burden
`shifts from the patent challenger to the patentee.”).
`A claim is unpatentable for obviousness if, to one of ordinary skill in
`the pertinent art, “the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
`have been obvious at the time the invention was made.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006)).
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`dete