UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,086,934
`Filing Date: June 30, 2020
`Issue Date: August 10, 2021
`Title: PLAY CONTROL OF CONTENT ON A DISPLAY DEVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2024-00325
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ................................................................................... viii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II.
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 1
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’934 PATENT ............................................................ 1
`A.
`Brief Description .................................................................................. 1
`B.
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 3
`C.
`Earliest Priority Date for the Claims..................................................... 5
`IV. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART ....................................................................... 5
`A.
`Redford ................................................................................................. 5
`B. Gonze .................................................................................................... 7
`C.
`Bartfeld ................................................................................................. 7
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b) ...................................................................................................... 8
`A.
`Claims for Which Review is Requested and Grounds on Which
`Challenge Is Based ............................................................................... 8
`314(a) Discretion Does Not Apply ....................................................... 8
`B.
`325(d) Discretion Does Not Apply ....................................................... 9
`C.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ....................................................................... 10
`D.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 10
`E.
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY .................................. 11
`A. Grounds A and B: Claims 1-20 are Rendered Obvious by
`Redford In View of Bartfeld and Redford in View of Bartfeld
`and Gonze ........................................................................................... 11
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 11
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 47
`3.
`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................... 49
`4.
`Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................... 50
`5.
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................... 52
`
`i
`
`

`

`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................... 53
`6.
`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 56
`7.
`Independent Claim 8 ................................................................. 57
`8.
`Dependent Claim 9 ................................................................... 61
`9.
`10. Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................. 61
`11. Dependent Claim 11 ................................................................. 62
`12. Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................. 62
`13. Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................. 62
`14. Dependent Claim 14 ................................................................. 63
`15. Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................. 63
`16. Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................. 63
`17.
`Independent Claim 17 ............................................................... 64
`18. Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................. 68
`19. Dependent Claim 19 ................................................................. 69
`20. Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................. 69
`VII. GROUNDS FOR STANDING & FEE PAYMENT ..................................... 69
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 70
`CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 CFR § 42.24(d) ..................................................... 71
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 72
`CLAIM LISTING APPENDIX ............................................................................... 73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Ex. 1001:
`Ex. 1002:
`Ex. 1003:
`Ex. 1004:
`Ex. 1005:
`Ex. 1006:
`Ex. 1007-17:
`Ex. 1018:
`Ex. 1019:
`Ex. 1020:
`
`Ex. 1021:
`
`Ex. 1022:
`
`Ex. 1023-29:
`Ex. 1030:
`
`Ex. 1031:
`
`Ex. 1032:
`
`Ex. 1033:
`
`Ex. 1034:
`
`Ex. 1035:
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,086,934 (“the ʼ934 Patent”)
`Expert Declaration of David B. Lett
`Curriculum Vitae of David B. Lett
`Certified Prosecution History of the ’934 Patent
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,660,545 (“Redford”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0235588 (“Gonze”)
`Reserved
`U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0107299 (“Bartfeld”)
`Reserved
`Joint Claim Construction Statement, Touchstream
`Technologies, Inc. v. Google LLC, 6:21-cv-00569-ADA
`(WDTX) (Feb. 8, 2022)
`Exhibit 1 to Joint Disputed Claim Terms Charts, Touchstream
`Technologies, Inc. v. Vizbee, Inc., 1:17-cv-06247-PGG-KNF
`(SDNY) (Aug. 6, 2018)
`Jury Instructions, Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Google
`LLC, 6:21-cv-00569-ADA (WDTX) (July 21, 2023)
`Reserved
`U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0104096 (“Cramer”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,356,575 (“Shapiro”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,842 (“Estipona”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0267899 (“Rahman”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0098533 (“Henshaw”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0172656 (“Kim”)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`Ex. 1036:
`
`Ex. 1037:
`Ex. 1038-40:
`Ex. 1041:
`
`Ex. 1042:
`
`Ex. 1043:
`
`Ex. 1044:
`
`Ex. 1045:
`
`Ex. 1046:
`
`Ex. 1047:
`
`Ex. 1048:
`
`Reserved
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,343,419 (“Robinson”)
`Reserved
`CODING OF MOVING PICTURES AND AUDIO, MPEG-4 Overview
`(Int’l Org. Standardisation 2002)
`ROBERT GODWIN-JONES, DIGITAL VIDEO UPDATE: YOUTUBE,
`FLASH, HIGH-DEFINITION, 11 LANGUAGE LEARNING &
`TECH. 16, 17 (2007)
`John C. Paolillo et al., A Network View of Social Media
`Platform History: Social Structure, Dynamics and Content on
`YouTube, PROC. 52ND HAWAII INT’L CONF. ON SYS. SCIS., 1,
`(2019)
`
`YouTube Opens Internet Video to Masses; Serving 3 Million
`Videos Daily and Growing, YouTube Unveils a Fast, Fun, and
`Easy Service for Consumers to Broadcast Original Video,
`MARKET WIRE, Dec. 15, 2005
`
`Hulu Debuts via Private Beta and on Distribution Partners
`AOL, Comcast, MSN, MySpace and Yahoo!; Company
`Announces Major Licensing Deals with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
`Studios Inc. and Sony Pictures Television; Providence Equity
`Partners Makes Strategic Investment in News
`Corporation/NBC Universal Online Video Joint Venture, BUS.
`WIRE, Oct. 29, 2007
`Blockbuster Offers Cheaper Online Rental, ASSOCIATED PRESS,
`Jun. 13, 2007
`
`Adobe Delivers Flash Player 9 With H.264 Video Support; HD
`Quality Web Video and Audio Now Available With Adobe Flash
`Player Update, BUS. WIRE, Dec. 4, 2007
`
`Microsoft Unveils Silverlight to Power the Next Generation of
`Media Experiences on the Web; Leading Media Companies and
`Solution Providers Announce Support for New Solution for
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Ex. 1049:
`
`Ex. 1050:
`
`Ex. 1051:
`
`Ex. 1052:
`
`Ex. 1053:
`
`Ex. 1054:
`
`Ex. 1055:
`
`Ex. 1056:
`
`Ex. 1057:
`
`Ex. 1058:
`
`Ex. 1059:
`
`Video and Interactivity on Mac- and Windows-Based Web
`Browsers, PR NEWSWIRE US, Apr. 16, 2007
`
`Former Apple Multimedia Pioneers Unveil WebTV; New
`Company Brings Internet to Television Viewers, PR
`NEWSWIRE, Jun. 12, 1996
`Netflix, TiVo Team Up After 4-Year Courtship, ASSOCIATED
`PRESS, Oct. 30, 2008
`
`TiVo and Amazon.com Announce New Service Enabling
`Amazon Unbox Video Download to TiVo; TiVo Subscribers
`Will Soon Be Able to Watch Amazon Unbox Movies and TV
`Shows on Their TVs, BUS. WIRE, Feb. 7, 2007
`Wall Crumbling Between Televisions and Computers, AGENCE
`FRANCE PRESSE – ENGLISH, Jan. 8, 2009
`ENHANCED TV BINARY INTERCHANGE FORMAT 1.0, ETV
`(OpenCable Specifications, Nov. 25, 2009)
`
`Award-Winning Sonos™ Digital Music System Begins Shipping
`to Customers, PR NEWSWIRE US, Jan. 27, 2005
`Sonos Introduces the Sonos™ ZonePlayer ZP80, PR
`NEWSWIRE, Jan. 4, 2006
`
`Sonos Introduces the Sonos Controller for iPhone; Free
`Application Lets Music Lovers Control Leading Multi- Room
`Music System from Their iPhone, PR NEWSWIRE, Oct. 28, 2008
`AT&T Opens R&D Lab in Cambridge, England, BUS. WIRE,
`Feb. 10, 1999
`Microsoft Releases Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server Edition,
`M2 PRESSWIRE, Jun 16, 1998
`
`TeamViewer: TeamViewer 3.0 Beta Published; Next
`Generation of the Popular Remote Support Software, M2
`PRESSWIRE, Aug. 27, 2007
`
`v
`
`

`

`Ex. 1060:
`
`Ex. 1061:
`
`Ex. 1062:
`
`Ex. 1063:
`
`Ex. 1064:
`Ex. 1065:
`Ex. 1066:
`Ex. 1067:
`
`Ex. 1068:
`
`Ex. 1069:
`Ex. 1070:
`Ex. 1071:
`Ex. 1072:
`
`Ex. 1073:
`Ex. 1074:
`Ex. 1075:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3am Labs Announces $10 Million Series A Financing;
`McNamee Lawrence & Co. Acts as Exclusive Financial Advisor
`to 3am Labs, BUS. WIRE, Nov. 16, 2004
`
`Expertcity's GoToMyPC Product Wins A People's Choice
`Award At Upside Events' Showcase 2001, INTERNET WIRE, Feb.
`1, 2001
`
`TV2Me(R) Goes Global By Partnering With Leading Asian
`Online Entertainment Company; Manila-Based ESL Adds Sales
`and Marketing Muscle to Bring Pioneering Place Shifting
`Technology to Wider Market, PR NEWSWIRE US, May 16, 2006
`
`CES Innovations 2005 Award and Red Herring Finalist for 100
`Most Innovative Companies are Latest Commendations for
`Sling Media, BUS. WIRE, Nov. 11, 2004
`Final Written Decision, IPR2022-00795 (Sep. 27, 2023)
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2022-00795 (Jan. 13, 2023)
`Reserved
`
`Progressive Networks Launches the First Commercial Audio-
`On-Demand System Over the Internet, BUS. WIRE, Apr. 10,
`1995
`
`Progressive Networks’ RealVideo Launched With Wide
`Industry Support, PR NEWSWIRE EUROPE, February 10, 1997
`Reserved
`U.S. Pat. Application No. 61/477,998
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,904,289 to Strober (“the ’289 Patent”)
`Certified Copy of Prosecution History of U.S. Pat No.
`8,904,289
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,767,195 to Strober (“the ’195 Patent”)
`Certified Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No. 9,767,195
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,048,751 to Strober (“the ’751 Patent”)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Ex. 1076:
`
`Ex. 1077-81:
`Ex. 1082:
`
`
`Certified Copy of Prosecution History of U.S. Pat. No.
`11,048,751
`Reserved
`Stipulation Regarding Invalidity Defenses
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`MANDATORY NOTICES
`Real Parties in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real parties-in-interest for this petition are (i) Comcast Cable
`
`Communications, LLC and (ii) Comcast Corporation.
`
`No unnamed entity is funding, controlling, or directing this Petition for inter
`
`partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 11,086,934 (“the ’934 Patent”), or otherwise
`
`has an opportunity to control or direct this Petition or Petitioner’s participation in
`
`any resulting IPR.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ’934 Patent, along with related U.S. Patent Nos. 8,356,251 (“the ’251
`
`Patent”) and 11,048,751 (“the ’751 Patent”), is being asserted against Comcast Cable
`
`Communications, LLC, d/b/a Xfinity, Comcast Cable Communications
`
`Management, LLC, and Comcast of Houston, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas
`
`in Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC d/b/a
`
`Xfinity et al., 2:23-cv-00062-JRG (“EDTX Litigation”). The earliest date of service
`
`on any of the Comcast entities named in the EDTX Litigation was March 1, 2023,
`
`however the ’934 and ’751 Patents were first asserted in a First Amended Complaint
`
`served on May 25, 2023.
`
`The ’251, ’751, and ’934 Patents are also presently being asserted against
`
`Charter Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Operating, LLC, Spectrum
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Management Holding Company, LLC, Time Warner Cable Enterprises, LLC, and
`
`Spectrum Gulf Coast, LLC in Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Charter
`
`Communications, Inc. et al, 2:23-cv-00059-JRG (EDTX); and against Altice USA,
`
`Inc., Cequel Communications, LLC, CSC Holdings, LLC, and Friendship Cable of
`
`Texas, Inc. in Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Altice USA, Inc. et al, 2:23-cv-
`
`00060-JRG (EDTX).
`
`The ’251 Patent is also presently being asserted against Google LLC in
`
`Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Google LLC, 6:21-cv-00569-ADA (WDTX)
`
`along with related U.S. Patent Nos. 8,782,528 (“the ’528 Patent”) and 8,904,289
`
`(“the ’289 Patent”). The ’251, ’528, and ’289 Patents were the subject of requests
`
`for inter partes review filed by Google LLC in IPR2022-00795, IPR2022-00793,
`
`and IPR2022-00794 (presently on appeal). The real parties-in-interest in this
`
`Petition are not involved in any of those IPRs. The ’251, ’528, and ’289 Patents were
`
`previously asserted against Vizbee, Inc. in Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v.
`
`Vizbee, Inc., 1:17-cv-06247-PGG-KNF (SDNY) which was terminated by stipulated
`
`dismissal on January 24, 2020.
`
`According to the Office’s records, the ’934 Patent is a continuation of U.S.
`
`Pat. App. No. 15/687,249, filed August 25, 2017 (issued as the ’751 Patent), which
`
`is a continuation of U.S. Pat. App. No. 13/532,546, filed June 25, 2012 (issued as
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,767,195), which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Pat. App. No.
`
`ix
`
`

`

`13/157,821, filed June 10, 2011 (issued as the ’289 Patent). The ’934 Patent claims
`
`priority to Provisional App. No. 61/477,998, filed April 21, 2011.
`
`No other petitions for inter partes review, post-grant review, or covered
`
`business method review have been filed against the ’934 Patent.
`
`This is the first of two petitions for inter partes review filed by Petitioner
`
`against the ’934 Patent. Petitioner is also filing petitions for inter partes review
`
`against the related ’251 and ’751 Patents.
`
`
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Petitioner designates counsel listed below. A power of attorney for counsel
`
`is being concurrently filed.
`
`x
`
`

`

`Lead Counsel
`Frederic M. Meeker (Reg. No. 35,282)
`fmeeker@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
`1100 13th Street, NW
`Suite 1200
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 824-3000
`Fax: (202) 824-3001
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Paul T. Qualey (Reg. No. 45,027)
`pqualey@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`John R. Hutchins (Reg. No. 43,686)
`jhutchins@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`John Fleming (Reg. No. 56,536)
`jfleming@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`Joshua L. Davenport (Reg. No. 72,756)
`jdavenport@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
`1100 13th Street, NW
`Suite 1200
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 824-3000
`Fax: (202) 824-3001
`
`Please address all correspondence to counsel at this address shown above.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at the following address and the
`
`above emails: ComcastIPRService@bannerwitcoff.com.
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Petitioner”) petitions for inter partes
`
`review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,086,934 (“the ’934
`
`Patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`The ’934 Patent claims systems and methods directed to translating
`
`commands among associated devices to control media. The methods present video
`
`content on a display device using one of various media players, via messages
`
`transmitted from a computer. The messages are converted into commands for the
`
`selected media player and then transmitted to a display device. In one embodiment,
`
`the display device is assigned a synchronization code used to associate the computer
`
`with the display device and stored in the server.
`
`The ’934 Patent claims are disclosed and rendered obvious by the prior art
`
`relied on herein, in view of the declaration of Mr. Lett.
`
` OVERVIEW OF THE ’934 PATENT
` Brief Description
`The ’934 Patent describes a system 10 for using a server system 24 (green) to
`
`facilitate a connection between a personal computing device 20 (blue) for selecting
`
`content, and a television/display device 22 (red) for displaying the selected content.
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:15-3:28; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 40-42.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Ex. 1001, Fig. 1 (annotated)
`
`
`
`The connection between the personal computing device (e.g., a mobile phone)
`
`and the display device may be established by the user selecting from a list of devices
`
`displayed on the mobile phone’s screen or alternatively the user can enter a unique
`
`identifier on the mobile phone that is uniquely associated with the display device.
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:27-35. The unique identifier can be obtained from, for example, a text
`
`or QR code displayed on the screen of the display device. Ex. 1001, 5:35-42. The
`
`2
`
`

`

`server system may then store the association between the personal computing device
`
`and display device. Ex. 1001, 5:49-54.
`
`When a user selects particular content on the mobile phone, a message is
`
`formatted and transmitted to the server which contains information to facilitate the
`
`playback of video content. Ex. 1001, 4:41-57. The message is received by the server
`
`and the information is stored in a database. Ex. 1001, 4:58-5:6. The server then
`
`confirms if a connection between the personal computing device and display device,
`
`and copies the message information to a database associated with the display device.
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:61-6:6. The server also identifies the media player requested in the
`
`message and converts the commands from the personal computing device into the
`
`correct code for use on the display device to control the media player. Ex. 1001,
`
`6:6-39. The information in the database associated with the display device is then
`
`transmitted to, or retrieved by the display device. Ex. 1001, 6:39-49. The display
`
`device then acts on the message information by, for example, loading the requested
`
`media player, obtaining the selected video content file, and playing the video. Ex.
`
`1001, 6:50-7:4.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The application that led to the ’934 Patent, U.S. Application No. 16/917,095,
`
`was filed on June 30, 2020, as a Track 1 application filed under the First Action
`
`Interview Full Pilot Program. Ex. 1004, pp. 1-2; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 43-66. The application
`
`3
`
`

`

`was a continuation of U.S. Application No. 15/687,249, filed August 25, 2017,
`
`which was a continuation of U.S. Application No. 13/532,546, filed June 25, 2012,
`
`which was a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No. of 13/157,821, filed June 10,
`
`2011, which claimed the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/477,998,
`
`filed April 21, 2011. Ex. 1001, cover.
`
`The ’934 Patent was initially rejected under the pilot program in view of U.S.
`
`Pub. No. 2009/0172780 to Sukeda et al. as to claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 16, and
`
`Sukeda in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0248802 to Mahajan as to the remaining
`
`claims. Id., pp. 66-86. Mahajan was cited by the Office as a secondary reference (to
`
`Sukeda) “to improve the device with reasonable expectation that this would result in
`
`a content display device that could ‘facilitate effective communication between the
`
`server and client such that the user’s media playback commands are executable on
`
`the client independent of platforms employed on the server and client’ as suggested
`
`by Mahajan (paragraph [0014])”. Id., pp. 74-76.
`
`On March 3, 2021, the Applicant amended the claims to recite “a first media
`
`playing application.” Id., pp. 779-785. Still, the rejections were maintained (Id., pp.
`
`793-820), and the Applicant further amended to further recite “a first type of media
`
`playing application” and “select the first type of media playing application… based
`
`at least in part on its association with the piece of content referenced in the received
`
`set of messages.” Id., pp. 879-884. This amendment was alleged to distinguish from
`
`4
`
`

`

`the Office’s citation of a “content body 177” in Sukeda as “a first media playing
`
`application.” Id., p. 888. Applicant further argued only generically that Mahajan
`
`failed to cure the deficiencies in Sukeda, while conceding that “Applicant submits
`
`that Mahajan’s translations for playback commands are being performed based on a
`
`‘client’s media platform.’” Id., p. 890.
`
`Following those amendments, and interview, the Application was allowed on
`
`June 30, 2021. Id., pp. 910-917.
`
` Earliest Priority Date for the Claims
`The earliest possible priority date for the claims of the ’934 Patent is April 21,
`
`2011, the filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/477,998 to which the
`
`’934 Patent claims priority. Ex. 1001, cover; Ex. 1002, ¶ 34. Each of the references
`
`relied on herein is prior art to that date as explained below.
`
` OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART
` Redford
`Redford, U.S. Patent No. 8,660,545 (Ex. 1005), issued on an application filed
`
`on January 6, 2010, and is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`85.
`
`Redford discloses a computer system 250 (green) including various video
`
`content provider computers 281A-281N and a computer 282 that authorizes transfer
`
`of video based on a user’s request. Ex. 1005, 2:59-67, Fig. 2B; Ex. 1002, ¶ 86.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Computer system 250 responds to requests from a handheld device 200 (blue) by
`
`sending a signal carrying user-selected video, for presentation, to an internet-enabled
`
`television 303 (red). Ex. 1005, 6:40-52, 11:37-12:12, 21:20-30, 22:5-46, Figs. 2B,
`
`3A-3C, 6A-6B, 8A-8B, 11A; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 86-103.
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 3A (annotated)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

` Gonze
`Gonze, U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0235588 (Ex. 1006), published on September 25,
`
`2008, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Ex. 1002, ¶ 104.
`
`Gonze discloses a system for making content available from multiple
`
`providers such that a playback device can request, receive, and present the content
`
`utilizing a playlist and a consistent user interface. Ex. 1006, Abstract, [0009]-[0010],
`
`[0034]-[0035], [0040], [0049], [0051], [0056], [0060]. Gonze describes that a
`
`browser and/or an operating system (OS) may use information from a file, for
`
`example, the file extension, to determine appropriate software to be loaded to play
`
`the file. Id., [0035]. For example, Gonze describes that the browser may determine
`
`whether the selected file can be played by any plug-ins. Id. If the file can be played
`
`by a plug-in, “the plug-in is loaded by the browser and the file is loaded by the plug-
`
`in.” Id. The browser may determine whether the selected file can be played by any
`
`plug-ins. Id.; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 105-112.
`
` Bartfeld
`
`Bartfeld, U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0107299 (Ex. 1018), published on May 18,
`
`2006, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Ex. 1002, ¶ 113.
`
`Bartfeld discloses a system for user assisted association between a television
`
`and a telephony device. Ex. 1018, Abstract. A server generates a code, associates it
`
`7
`
`

`

`with a set-top address, and transmits it back to the STB. Id. The STB displays the
`
`code on a television. Id., [0007], [0025]-[0026]; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 114-118.
`
`
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(B)
` Claims for Which Review is Requested and Grounds on Which
`Challenge Is Based
`Petitioner requests review of claims 1–20 on the following grounds.
`
`Ground
`
`References
`
`A
`
`B
`
`Redford in view of Bartfeld
`
`Redford in view of Bartfeld and
`Gonze
`
`Basis
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`1-20
`
`1-20
`
`None of the prior art listed in the table above was before the examiner during
`
`prosecution of the ’934 Patent.
`
`
`
`314(a) Discretion Does Not Apply
`
`The Fintiv factors as set forth in the Director’s June 21, 2022, Guidance
`
`Memorandum do not warrant discretionary denial.
`
`Factor one appears neutral. Petitioner has filed IPR petitions challenging all
`
`three patents asserted in the District Court. If trial is instituted, Petitioner expects to
`
`request a stay, as decisions in Petitioner’s favor would resolve the dispute in its
`
`entirety.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Factor two does not warrant denial. The District Court case against Petitioner
`
`is consolidated with the cases against Charter and Altice with the Altice case
`
`designated as the lead case. Trial in all three cases is set for October 28, 2024;
`
`Petitioner’s trial will occur on or after that date. Furthermore, motions to transfer
`
`are awaiting ruling.
`
`Factor three does not warrant denial. The District Court has not yet begun the
`
`claim construction process and fact discovery does not close until June 2024.
`
`Factor four strongly favors institution. The petition challenges all claims in
`
`the ’934 Patent while only claims 17-20 are asserted in the District Court.
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner stipulates not to pursue in the District Court any ground that
`
`utilizes the same combination of prior art references relied upon in the instituted
`
`petition. Ex. 1082.
`
`Factor five does not warrant denial as Petitioner is a defendant in the District
`
`Court case.
`
`Factor six favors institution. Petitioner presents compelling unpatentability
`
`challenges that merit institution, relying on entirely different prior art than that of
`
`the previously-considered Google petition.
`
`
`
`325(d) Discretion Does Not Apply
`
`The Board should not exercise its 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) discretion to deny
`
`institution. The grounds raised herein are not the same or substantially the same as
`
`9
`
`

`

`the art and arguments raised during prosecution, and if they are, Examiner erred in
`
`a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims.
`
` Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention would have had a degree in computer or electrical engineering, computer
`
`science, information systems, or a similar discipline, along with three-to-four years
`
`of experience with the design and/or implementation of network-based content
`
`delivery systems, such as video-on-demand cable systems and Internet video
`
`streaming. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 30-31.
`
` Claim Construction
`
`For purposes of this petition only, all claim terms herein are given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning to a POSITA. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). No terms
`
`need be specifically construed in order to resolve any controversy in the instant
`
`Petition. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only
`
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). Petitioner does not contend
`
`that the claims include any means-plus-function limitations.
`
`In the Touchstream-Google case involving the related ’251, ’528, and ’289
`
`Patents, Patent Owner advocated that plain and ordinary meaning applies for all
`
`10
`
`

`

`claim terms1, and that position was adopted by the Court. Ex. 1020, pp. 2-4; Ex.
`
`1022, p. 22. In the earlier Touchstream-Vizbee case involving the same patents,
`
`Patent Owner advocated that plain and ordinary meaning applies for certain claim
`
`terms but for other terms proposed constructions which it seems to have now
`
`abandoned. Ex. 1021, pp. 1-14.
`
`In IPR2022-00795, involving the ’251 Patent, the Board noted that “the
`
`parties agree that the term ‘media player’ refers to software and not to a hardware
`
`device” but otherwise did not construe any terms. Ex. 1064, pp. 11-13. The prior
`
`art relied on herein includes software media players.
`
` SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
` Grounds A and B: Claims 1-20 are Rendered Obvious by Redford
`In View of Bartfeld and Redford in View of Bartfeld and Gonze
`Independent Claim 1
`1.
`[1A]: “A non-transitory computer storage medium
`a.
`storing computer-useable instructions that, when used
`by a computing device, cause the computing device to
`perform operations comprising:”
`To the extent the preamble is limiting, Redford discloses it. Redford discloses
`
`a computer system 250 (green)
`
`including various video content provider
`
`computers 281A-281N and a computer 282 that authorizes transfer of video
`
`
`
`1 For some terms, Patent Owner provided its view as to what that meaning is.
`
`11
`
`

`

`(“authority server”). Ex. 1005, 2:59-67, 5:28-41, Fig. 2B; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 125-126.
`
`Computer system 250 responds to requests 301 from a handheld device 200 (blue)
`
`by sending a signal carrying user-selected video 302, for presentation, to an internet-
`
`enabled television 303 (red) (e.g., “computing device”). Ex. 1005, 6:40-52, 11:37-
`
`12:12, 21:20-30, 22:5-46, Figs. 2B, 3A-3C, 6A-6B, 8A-8B, 11A; Ex. 1002, ¶ 127.
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 3A (annotated)
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Television 303 is a computing device that includes a microcontroller 901 and
`
`processor 911 for executing program instructions stored on a non-transitory storage
`
`medium (e.g., ROM, RAM 902 or flash 903) to perform operations. Ex. 1005, 12:5-
`
`12, 30:23-61, FIGs. 9A-9B; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 128-129.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 9A
`
`Therefore, Redford discloses limitation [1A].
`
`b.
`
`[1B]: “providing a unique identifier of the computing
`device to another computing device;”
`Redford discloses that the authority server 282 of computer system 250
`
`receives, from a television 303 (“computing device”), registration information
`
`including an IP address, TV-name, and TV-password (each a “unique identifier”).
`
`Ex. 1005, 31:7-14, 44:44-48. The registration process is illustratively shown in Fig.
`
`11B. Ex. 1002, ¶ 132.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Redford describes that authority server 282 receives a connection request
`
`from television 303, checks if a record exists in a database for television 303, and if
`
`not, creates a new record in the database using the registration information received
`
`from the television, shown in annotated Fig. 11B below. Thereafter, authority server
`
`282 marks television 303 as being available. Id., 35:25-36, Fig. 11B; Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`133.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 11B (annotated)
`
`
`
`Redford discloses that the authority server 282 of computer system 250, after
`
`receiving the command to form an association from handheld device 200 (“another
`
`computing
`
`device”), marks handheld
`
`device 200 as
`
`being
`
`associated
`
`with television 303 (“computing device”) as association information in a database.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005, 36:2-3, 43:15-20. The storage of association information is illustrated at
`
`1134 in Fig. 11D; Ex. 1002, ¶ 134.
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 11D (annotated)
`
`
`
`Redford describes that server 282 “maintains in its database” “[a]ssociation
`
`information (also called ‘pairing’)” including “identifier of the handheld device, …
`
`IP address, TV-name and TV-password.” Ex. 1005, 43:15-20. The record for the
`
`television 303, created in Fig. 11B and/or the record for the handheld device 200,
`
`created in Fig. 11D is marked to associate, or pair, the two in one or both records.
`
`As Redford describes, by maintaining the association information in its database,
`
`subsequent commands, received by the server, to play a video cause the server to
`
`retrieve, from a record in its database, an identifier of the television 303 associated
`
`15
`
`

`

`with the handheld device 200. Ex. 1005, 36:41-45. A POSITA would have
`
`understood that Redford’s description of “mark”ing the handheld device 200 and
`
`television 303 as being associated is an update to the record for the television 303,
`
`created in step 1125 in Fig. 11B, maintained in the computer system 250 database.
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 135-138.
`
`To the extent it is determined that Redford does not teach that computer
`
`television 303 provides a unique identifier to handheld device 200, a POSITA would
`
`have understood that the association disclosed in Redford would be achieved by
`
`creating an assigned unique identifier on a television for use by a telephone device
`
`of a user as demonstrated by Bartfeld. Ex. 1002, ¶ 139.
`
`As discussed above in Section IV.C, Bartfeld discloses a system for user
`
`assisted association between a television and a telephony device. Ex. 1018, Abstract.
`
`Bartfeld describes that a server generates a unique identifier, associates the unique
`
`identifier with a set-top address, and transm