UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., and
`AUDIBLE, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`AUDIO POD IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2025-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 10,805,111
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,805,111
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., and
`AUDIBLE, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`AUDIO POD IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2025-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 10,805,111
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,805,111
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`BACKGROUND AND STATE OF THE ART ---------------------------- 1
`
`
`
`THE ’111 PATENT ------------------------------------------------------------ 3
`
` Overview ------------------------------------------------------------------ 3
`
` Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
`
` Prosecution ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`
` Priority --------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART --------------------------- 5
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION -------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED -------------------- 6
`
` Grounds -------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
` Status of References as Prior Art --------------------------------------- 7
`
` GROUND 1A: CLAIMS 1-2, 4-5, AND 16 WOULD HAVE
`BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF PRABHAKARAN AND
`DUNCAN ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
` Claim 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Preamble ----------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`1[a]: Network Accessible Library ------------------------------ 8
`
`1[b]: Downloading Image Associated with Time
`Information ------------------------------------------------------ 9
`
`1[c]: Assembling a First Page ---------------------------------- 11
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1[d]: Assigning Time Information to First Page ------------- 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Assembling a Page --------------------------------------- 16
`
`Changing the Presentation Speed ---------------------- 18
`
`Translating Synchronization Times into
`Presentation Times ------------------------------------- 20
`
`1[e]: Downloading Audio --------------------------------------- 21
`
`1[f]: Simultaneously Rendering Images and Audio --------- 23
`
` Claim 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 24
`
` Claim 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 25
`
` Claim 5 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 25
`
` Claim 16 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 27
`
` GROUND 1B: CLAIM 3 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`IN VIEW OF PRABHAKARAN, DUNCAN, AND
`TEMPLEMAN ---------------------------------------------------------------- 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GROUND 1C: CLAIM 6 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`IN VIEW OF PRABHAKARAN, DUNCAN, AND
`OPTIONALLY HAY --------------------------------------------------------- 30
`
`GROUND 1D: CLAIM 7 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`IN VIEW OF PRABHAKARAN, DUNCAN, AND
`OPTIONALLY HAY AND/OR HECKERMAN ------------------------- 33
`
`GROUND 1E: CLAIMS 8-11 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF PRABHAKARAN, DUNCAN,
`AND DTB ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 36
`
` Claim 8 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 36
`
` Claim 9 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 39
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
` Claims 10 and 11 -------------------------------------------------------- 40
`
` GROUND 1F: CLAIMS 12-15 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF PRABHAKARAN, DUNCAN,
`AND DR. SEUSS ------------------------------------------------------------- 43
`
` Claim 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 43
`
` Claim 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 47
`
`
`
`
`
`13[a]: Rendering Text Passages -------------------------------- 47
`
`13[b]: Assigning Time Information --------------------------- 48
`
` Claim 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 49
`
` Claim 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 50
`
` GROUND 2A: CLAIMS 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, AND 16 WOULD
`HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF DTB, STEELE, AND
`DUNCAN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 51
`
` Claim 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Preamble ---------------------------------------------------------- 51
`
`1[a]: Network Accessible Library ----------------------------- 52
`
`1[b]: Downloading Images Associated with Time
`Information ----------------------------------------------------- 55
`
`1[c]: Assembling a First Page ---------------------------------- 57
`
`1[d]: Assigning Time Information to First Page ------------- 60
`
`
`
`
`
`Assigning Time Information by Assembling
`a Page ---------------------------------------------------- 61
`
`Assigning Time Information by Changing
`the Presentation Speed --------------------------------- 62
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1[e]: Downloading Audio --------------------------------------- 62
`
`1[f]: Simultaneously Rendering Images and Audio --------- 63
`
` Claim 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 63
`
` Claim 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 64
`
` Claim 5 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 64
`
` Claims 8-11 -------------------------------------------------------------- 65
`
` Claim 16 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 65
`
` GROUND 2B: CLAIM 3 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`IN VIEW OF DTB, STEELE, DUNCAN, AND
`TEMPLEMAN ---------------------------------------------------------------- 65
`
` GROUND 2C: CLAIM 6 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`IN VIEW OF DTB, STEELE, DUNCAN, AND HAY ------------------ 65
`
` GROUND 2D: CLAIM 7 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`IN VIEW OF DTB, STEELE, DUNCAN, HAY, AND
`PRABHAKARAN ------------------------------------------------------------ 67
`
` GROUND 2E: CLAIMS 12-15 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF DTB, STEELE, DUNCAN, AND
`DR. SEUSS -------------------------------------------------------------------- 68
`
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF
`NONOBVIOUSNESS -------------------------------------------------------- 69
`
` DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §314(A) IS NOT
`APPROPRIATE --------------------------------------------------------------- 69
`
` Factor 1: Potential Stay ------------------------------------------------- 69
`
` Factor 2: Proximity of Trial to FWD---------------------------------- 70
`
` Factor 3: Investment in Parallel Proceeding ------------------------- 71
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
` Factor 4: Overlapping Issues ------------------------------------------- 72
`
` Factor 5: The Parties ---------------------------------------------------- 72
`
` Factor 6: Other Circumstances ----------------------------------------- 72
`
` DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §325(D) IS NOT
`APPROPRIATE --------------------------------------------------------------- 73
`
` CONCLUSION ---------------------------------------------------------------- 73
`
` MANDATORY NOTICES, GROUNDS FOR STANDING,
`AND FEE PAYMENT ------------------------------------------------------- 74
`
` Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) --------------------- 74
`
` Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) ----------------------------- 74
`
` Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) ----------------- 74
`
` Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)) ------------------------ 76
`
` Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)) ----------------------- 76
`
` Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.15(a)) ------------------------------- 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases:
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s):
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Nokia Technologies OY,
`IPR2024-01140, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2025) --------------------- 70, 72
`Apple v. Fintiv,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ------------------- 69, 72
`Aptiv Services US, LLC v. Microchip Technology, Inc.,
`IPR2024-00646, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 25, 2024) ---------------------- 70
`Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd.,
`25 F.4th 976 (Fed. Cir. 2022) -------------------------------------------------- 72
`Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.,
`109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997) --------------------------------------------- 44, 46
`Ericsson Inc. v. XR Communications LLC,
`IPR2024-00613, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2024) ---------------------- 70, 71
`Google LLC v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2022-00630, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 13, 2022) ---------------------- 72
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) --------------------------------------------------- 5
`Kom Software, Inc. v. NetApp, Inc.,
`No. 2021-1075, 2021 WL 5985360 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2021) ------------ 23
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ------------------------------------------------------- passim
`Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ----------------------------------------------- 69
`In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.,
`911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ------------------------------------------- 43, 44
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`
`
`Quasar Sci. LLC v. Colt Int’l Clothing, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00611, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 10, 2023) ----------------------- 73
`Samsung Electronics Co. v. Empire Technology
`Development LLC,
`IPR2024-00896, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2024) ----------------------- 71
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ----------------------------------------------- 43
`Sec. First Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:23-cv-00097, 2024 WL 234720
`(E.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2024) -------------------------------------------------------- 69
`Sharpe Innovations, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-00351, 2018 WL 11198604
`(E.D. Va. Jan. 10, 2018) -------------------------------------------------------- 69
`Shenzen Chic Elecs. v. Pilot, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00810, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2023) ------------------------ 73
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) ------------------------ 72
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016) --------------------------------------------------- 7
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) --------------------------------------------------- 6
`Statutes and Rules:
`35 U.S.C. §102 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7
`35 U.S.C. §103 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6
`35 U.S.C. §112 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6
`35 U.S.C. §325 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 73
`
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,111
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,805,111 (“the ’111 patent”)
`
`Declaration of Professor Ketan Mayer-Patel, Ph.D.
`
`NATIONAL INFORMATION STANDARDS ORGANIZATION, SPECIFICA-
`TIONS FOR THE DIGITAL TALKING BOOK (ANSI/NISO Z39.86-
`2002) (2002) (“DTB”)
`
`1004
`
`European Patent Publication No. EP 1463258 A1 (“Lindahl”)
`
`Exhibit Number 1005 Not Used
`
`Yoshimura et al., Content Delivery Network Architecture for Mo-
`bile Streaming Service Enabled by SMIL Modification, 86 IEICE
`TRANSACTIONS ON COMMC’N 1778 (2003) (“Yoshimura”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1007-1025 Not Used
`
` B. PRABHAKARAN, MULTIMEDIA SYSTEMS AND TECHNIQUES,
`177-216 (Borko Furht ed., 1996) (“Prabhakaran”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0013073 (“Duncan”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0184189 (“Hay”)
`
`Robert Steele, et al., Accessing SMIL-based Dynamically Adapta-
`ble Multimedia Presentations from Mobile Devices, in INT’L
`CONF. ON INFO. TECH.: CODING AND COMPUTING (2004)
`(“Steele”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,260,011 (“Heckerman”)
`
`THEODOR S. GEISEL, THE CAT IN THE HAT (1957) (“Dr. Seuss”)
`
`1006
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 1
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,111
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`1056
`
`1057
`
`1058
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1061
`
`1062
`
`1063
`
`1064
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703 (“Leighton”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,922,045 (“Hanson”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1034-1052 Not Used
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,845,303 (“Templeman”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,789,229 (“Dunietz”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,723,209 (“Hernandez”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE37,258 (“Patel”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,798,841 (“Takahashi”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,021,989 (“Fujisawa”)
`
`PCT Patent Publication No. WO2001/01373A2 (“Hendricks”)
`
`PCT Patent Publication No. WO2002/08948A2 (“Sull”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,622,171 (“Gupta”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,208,995 (“Himmel”)
`
`P. Delacourt & C.J. Wellekens, DISTBIC: A speaker-based seg-
`mentation for audio data indexing, 32 SPEECH COMMUNICATION
`111 (2000) (“Delacourt”)
`
`Excerpt from WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTION-
`ARY (2002)
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 2
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,111
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1065
`
`1066
`
`Excerpt from RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S COLLEGE DICTIONARY
`(2nd ed. 2001)
`
`Excerpt from B. PRABHAKARAN, MULTIMEDIA DATABASE MAN-
`AGEMENT SYSTEMS (1997) (“Prabhakaran II”)
`
`1067
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0024898 (“Wan”)
`
`1068
`
`Joshua Hodas et al., NOVeLLA: A Multi-Modal Electronic-Book
`Reader With Visual and Auditory Interfaces, 4 INT’L J. SPEECH
`TECH., 269 (2001) (“Hodas”)
`
`1069
`
`PCT Patent Publication No. WO2002/080524A2 (“Dimitrova”)
`
`1070
`
`PATRICK SCHMITZ, THE SMIL 2.0 TIMING AND SYNCHRONIZATION
`MODEL, TECH. RPT. MSR-TR-2001-01 (2001) (“Schmitz”)
`
`1071
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0245243A1 (“Zuniga”)
`
`1072
`
`1073
`
`1074
`
`1075
`
`Excerpt from File History for European Patent Publication No.
`EP1961154
`
`Advisory Action dated Oct. 12, 2010, U.S. Patent App. No.
`12/096933
`
`Final Office Action dated July 28, 2010, U.S. Patent App. No.
`12/096933
`
`Barry Arons, SpeechSkimmer: A System for Interactively Skim-
`ming Recorded Speech, 4 ACM TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTER-
`HUMAN INTERACTION 3 (1997) (“Arons”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1076-1078 Not Used
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 3
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,111
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1079
`
`1095
`
`1096
`
`1097
`
`THEODOR S. GEISEL, THE CAT IN THE HAT AND OTHER DR. SEUSS
`FAVORITES (narrated by Kelsey Grammer et al., Listening Library
`2003) (CD)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1080-1094 Not Used
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 10,805,111
`
`CV of Professor Ketan Mayer-Patel, Ph.D.
`
`Declaration of Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis, Ph.D.
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 4
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,111
`Petitioners Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon Web
`
`Services, Inc., and Audible, Inc. (“Petitioners” or “Amazon”) respectfully request
`
`inter partes review of claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,805,111 (“the ’111 patent”),
`
`which Audio Pod IP, LLC (“Patent Owner” or “PO”) purportedly owns.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The challenged claims are directed to a client device that renders images and
`
`corresponding audio, which are obtained from a network accessible library. The
`
`broadest claims recite the well-known steps of downloading images and audio clips,
`
`assembling a page from the images, and rendering the page while playing the audio.
`
`By the time of the ’111 patent’s earliest possible priority date in December 2005,
`
`such methods were widely known.
`
`The primary references in this Petition were never submitted to, or considered
`
`by, the Examiner, who allowed the ’111 patent claims without a single Office Ac-
`
`tion. Although the claims avoided meaningful examination during the application
`
`process, they are clearly unpatentable and should be canceled.
`
` BACKGROUND AND STATE OF THE ART
`
`A multimedia presentation comprises different media streams such as text,
`
`images, audio, and video. (EX-1026, 177; EX-1002 ¶32.) Multimedia synchroni-
`
`zation refers to the task of coordinating objects from different media streams in the
`
`time domain. (Id.)
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,111
`In 1996, nearly a decade before the earliest possible priority date of the ’111
`
`patent, Prabhakaran disclosed a method that included downloading corresponding
`
`image and audio streams from a multimedia database, assembling images for dis-
`
`play, and rendering the images with their corresponding audio. (EX-1026, 177-78;
`
`EX-1002 ¶33.) Synchronization was achieved using pre-defined temporal relations,
`
`which specified the time offsets of the audio stream corresponding to each image:
`
`
`
`(EX-1026, 177-78, Fig. 11 (excerpt); EX-1002 ¶33.)
`
`In 2002, the National Information Standards Organization approved a stand-
`
`ard for creating digital talking books, which involved the synchronized rendering of
`
`text, images, and audio. (EX-1003, vii; EX-1002 ¶34.) Using that standard, users
`
`could access digital talking books via the Internet and control the font size and audio
`
`playback speed on their devices. (EX-1003, vii, 21, 24-25, 63; EX-1002 ¶34.)
`
`In 2003, Duncan disclosed an electronic book device that downloaded a media
`
`stream from a database. (EX-1027 ¶¶[0004], [0023], Fig. 2; EX-1002 ¶35.) The
`
`
`1 Figures herein may be colored and/or annotated for clarity.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,111
`device displayed a page and simultaneously read that page aloud before automati-
`
`cally turning the page to continue reading. (EX-1027, Abstract, ¶¶[0013], [0033];
`
`EX-1002 ¶35.) The device stored “the start and end position of a page of text being
`
`displayed” to determine when a page should be displayed during the audio playback.
`
`(EX-1027 ¶[0028]; EX-1002 ¶35.) The device also paginated on the fly if, for ex-
`
`ample, a user selected a different font size. (EX-1027 ¶¶[0042]-[0044]; EX-1002
`
`¶35.)
`
` THE ’111 PATENT
` Overview
`The ’111 patent describes well-known steps to download, assemble and render
`
`images and corresponding audio. (EX-1002 ¶36.) It describes accessing a library
`
`to download a portion of an audio stream and one or more images, the images asso-
`
`ciated with time information relative to the audio timeline. (EX-1001, 2:54-3:2;
`
`6:53-7:2.) It describes assembling a page from the images, assigning time infor-
`
`mation to the page, and simultaneously rendering the page and corresponding audio.
`
`(Id., 29:15-30:56, 39:34-43.)
`
` Claims
`Claims 1-16 are challenged in this petition. Claims 1 and 16 are independent.
`
`Claim 1 is representative and recites:
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,111
`A method comprising:
`[a] accessing, by a client device, a network accessible library having stored
`thereon an image stream of static graphic images and a corresponding
`audio stream;
`[b] downloading to the client device from the network accessible library one
`or more static graphic images from the image stream, wherein the one
`or more static graphic images are each associated with time information
`including at least one of a start time, an end time, and a duration relative
`to a timeline of the audio stream;
`[c] assembling, by the client device, a first page from the one or more static
`graphic images;
`[d] assigning to the first page, by the client device, time information including
`at least one of a start time, an end time, and a duration relative to the
`timeline of the audio stream, wherein the time information for the first
`page is determined on the basis of the time information for the one or
`more static graphic images;
`[e] downloading to the client device from the network accessible library a
`portion of the audio stream including a first time offset, wherein the
`first time offset corresponds to a first position on the first page; and
`[f] simultaneously rendering the first page and the portion of the audio stream
`on the client device by using the time information for the one or more
`static graphic images or for the first page, wherein the portion of the
`audio stream is rendered in dependence upon the first time offset.
`The dependent claims recite trivial variations, such as the library including a
`
`server, the number of images rendered being dependent on the size of the image or
`
`device capabilities, assembling a second page, and automatically turning the page.
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,111
`Prosecution
`
`The Examiner allowed the claims without a single Office Action. (EX-1095,
`
`23-30.) None of the references herein were meaningfully considered by the Exam-
`
`iner. Hay (relied on herein for dependent claims 6 and 7) was cited in a lengthy IDS
`
`but none of the other references were before the Examiner.
`
`Priority
`
`The ’111 patent’s earliest possible priority date is December 13, 2005.
`
`(EX-1001, 1-2.) Petitioner does not concede that the claims are entitled to that pri-
`
`ority date.
`
` LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A POSITA is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l
`
`Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Here, a POSITA would have had at
`
`least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or com-
`
`puter science, and at least three years of industry or academic experience in the de-
`
`sign, development, and/or implementation of content rendering and/or distribution
`
`systems. (EX-1002 ¶¶27-31); see In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1995). Work experience could substitute for formal education and additional formal
`
`education could substitute for work experience. (EX-1002 ¶29.)
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,111
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`No claim terms require construction to resolve the obviousness challenges
`
`here. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013,
`
`1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999). For this proceeding only, Petitioners assume the claims are not
`
`invalid under §112.
`
` STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
` Grounds
`The Board should cancel the claims as obvious under §103 on the following
`
`Grounds:
`
`Ground Challenged
`Claims
`1-2, 4-5, 16 Prabhakaran and Duncan
`
`1A
`
`References
`
`1B
`
`1C
`
`1D
`
`1E
`
`1F
`
`2A
`
`2B
`
`3
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8-11
`
`12-15
`
`1-2, 4-5, 8-
`11, 16
`
`Prabhakaran, Duncan, and Templeman
`
`Prabhakaran, Duncan, and optionally Hay
`
`Prabhakaran, Duncan, and optionally Hay
`and/or Heckerman
`
`Prabhakaran, Duncan, and DTB
`
`Prabhakaran, Duncan, and Dr. Seuss
`
`DTB, Steele, and Duncan
`
`3
`
`DTB, Steele, Duncan, and Templeman
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,111
`Ground Challenged
`Claims
`6
`
`2C
`
`References
`
`DTB, Steele, Duncan, and Hay
`
`2D
`
`2E
`
`7
`
`DTB, Steele, Duncan, Hay, and Prabhakaran
`
`12-15
`
`DTB, Steele, Duncan, and Dr. Seuss
`
`Additional support is included in the Declaration of Professor Ketan Mayer-
`
`Patel, Ph.D. (EX-1002.)
`
`Status of References as Prior Art
`
`Each reference is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) because it pub-
`
`lished more than one year before the ’111 patent’s earliest possible priority date of
`
`December 13, 2005: Dr. Seuss (1957); Prabhakaran (1996); Templeman (1998);
`
`Heckerman (2001); DTB (2002); Hay (2002); Duncan (2003); and Steele (April
`
`2004). (EX-1053, 1; EX-1030, 1; EX-1028, 1; EX-1027, 1; EX-1097 ¶¶51-78.)
`
`These references are analogous art because they are from the same field of
`
`endeavor as the ’111 patent, e.g., content distribution and/or rendering. (EX-1002
`
`¶22); Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`They are also pertinent to a particular problem the inventor was focused on, e.g.,
`
`efficient and effective distribution and/or rendering of content. (Id.)
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,111
` GROUND 1A: CLAIMS 1-2, 4-5, AND 16 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF PRABHAKARAN AND DUNCAN.
`
` Claim 1
`
`
`Preamble
`
`The preamble recites “[a] method comprising.” Prabhakaran discloses a
`
`method including the steps of (1) acquiring multimedia objects from servers, (2) syn-
`
`chronizing multimedia objects in the time domain, and (3) concurrently presenting
`
`synchronized multimedia objects. (EX-1026, 177-81, 206-10; EX-1002 ¶40.) Ac-
`
`cordingly, to the extent the preamble is limiting, it is disclosed or rendered obvious
`
`by Prabhakaran. (EX-1002 ¶40.)
`
`
`
`1[a]: Network Accessible Library
`
`Element 1[a] recites “accessing, by a client device, a network accessible li-
`
`brary having stored thereon an image stream of static graphic images and a corre-
`
`sponding audio stream.”
`
`Prabhakaran discloses that client devices retrieve (via a network) “multimedia
`
`objects” including text, images, audio, and video from databases stored on servers.
`
`(EX-1026, 177-78, 181 (network/database), 206 (network/servers), 210 (multimedia
`
`objects retrieved from server); EX-1002 ¶42.) Synchronization points (also referred
`
`to as “temporal relations” or “points of synchronization”) between the multimedia
`
`objects are “pre-defined” and “stored along with the multimedia objects.”
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,111
`(EX-1026, 177, 213.) Figure 1 shows a presentation of images corresponding to
`
`audio clips at time offsets (e.g., t0, t1, t2, tn):
`
`
`
`(Id., 178, Fig. 1 (excerpt); EX-1002 ¶42.)
`
`Prabhakaran therefore discloses or renders obvious a client device accessing
`
`(e.g., retrieving multimedia objects from) a network accessible library (e.g., multi-
`
`media database on server) having stored thereon an image stream of static graphic
`
`images (e.g., Image 1, Image 2, Image 3, … Image n) and corresponding audio
`
`stream (e.g., Audio 1, Audio 2, Audio 3, … Audio n). (EX-1002 ¶¶41-43.)
`
`
`
`1[b]: Downloading Image Associated with
`Time Information
`
`Element 1[b] recites “downloading to the client device from the network ac-
`
`cessible library one or more static graphic images from the image stream, wherein
`
`the one or more static graphic images are each associated with time information in-
`
`cluding at least one of a start time, an end time, and a duration relative to a timeline
`
`of the audio stream.”
`
`Prabhakaran’s client retrieves, from the server via a network, images from an
`
`image stream. (Supra §VII.A.2.) Pre-defined temporal relations between the image
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,111
`and audio streams are stored in the multimedia database. (Id.) Figure 1 shows each
`
`image corresponds to an audio clip (e.g., Image 1 corresponds to Audio 1) such that
`
`the corresponding image and audio clip share the same start time, end time, and
`
`duration:
`
`
`
`
`
`(EX-1026, 178, Fig. 1 (excerpt); EX-1002 ¶45.) Each image is therefore displayed
`
`relative to the same timeline as the corresponding audio file. (Id.)
`
`Prabhakaran therefore discloses or renders obvious downloading (e.g., retriev-
`
`ing) to the client device from the network accessible library (e.g., multimedia data-
`
`base on server) one or more static graphic images from the image stream (e.g., Image
`
`1), each associated with time information including at least one of a start time, an
`
`end time, and a duration (e.g., t0-t1) relative to a timeline of the audio stream.
`
`(EX-1002 ¶¶44-46.)
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,111
`1[c]: Assembling a First Page
`
`
`Element 1[c] recites “assembling, by the client device, a first page from the
`
`one or more static graphic images.” Prabhakaran discloses assembling a first page
`
`because it renders a page comprising, e.g., Image 1. (EX-1002 ¶48.)
`
`Prabhakaran’s process for assembling a page is the same as the ’111 patent’s.
`
`(Id.)
`
`The ’111 patent describes a “dynamic approach” where pages are created at
`
`run time. (EX-1001, 29:34-63.) “[P]ages are defined on the basis of screen size,
`
`font size, font type, presentation style, included graphics, other ancillary content,
`
`writing style … and text availability.” (Id., 29:35-39.) The available space on a
`
`page is “filled with appropriately formatted text and ancillary content” including
`
`images. (Id., 29:47-49.) A page may contain only one image or more than one
`
`image. (Id., 30:30-37; EX-1002 ¶48.)
`
`Prabhakaran similarly explains that the user can modify the presentation by,
`
`for example, “scal[ing] the spatial requirements” and “handl[ing] spatial clash[.]”
`
`(EX-1026, 178 (“The points of synchronization in a multimedia presentation can be
`
`modified by the user going through the presentation…. for example, a user may in-
`
`teract by giving inputs such as … scale the spatial requirements, handle spatial
`
`clash”); EX-1002 ¶49.) Users can modify the size of objects displayed on the screen
`
`and therefore assemble a page in the same way disclosed by the ’111 patent (e.g.,
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,111
`modifying content size at run time). (Id.) A POSITA would have understood that
`
`on client devices with large displays, the client device may arrange Images 1-3 on a
`
`single page, modifying the synchronization points so that Images 1-3 were all dis-
`
`played on a page from t0 to t3. (EX-1002 ¶49.) On client devices with smaller
`
`displays, the client device may fit only Images 1-2 on a page, modifying the syn-
`
`chronization points so that Images 1-2 were displayed on a page from t0 to t2. (Id.)
`
`Prabhakaran therefore discloses or renders obvious assembling (e.g., in re-
`
`sponse to user input scaling the object size), by the client device, a first page (e.g.,
`
`display) from one or more static graphic images. (Id. ¶¶47-50.)
`
`Even if Prabhakaran did not disclose or render obvious this limitation, it
`
`would have been obvious in view of Duncan. (Id. ¶51.) Duncan discloses an elec-
`
`tronic book device that assembles pages including images. (EX-1027.) An exem-
`
`plary page is shown in Figure 3:
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,111
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 3.) Just as the ’111 patent describes “a dynamic approach to pagination”
`
`(EX-1001, 29:34-47), Duncan describes a “paginator” that can “function dynami-
`
`cally at any time” (EX-1027 ¶[0042]). Duncan, like the ’111 patent, discloses re-
`
`paginating in response to a change in font size. (Compare EX-1001, 29:34-45 with
`
`EX-1027 ¶[0042]-[0044].) The client’s microprocessor performs this pagination.
`
`(EX-1027 ¶¶[0021]-[0025], Fig. 1 (client’s microprocessor executes pagination
`
`logic).) Duncan therefore discloses a client device performing this limitation.
`
`(EX-1002 ¶51.)
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,111
`A POSITA would have been motivated to use Duncan’s pagination method in
`
`Prabhakaran’s system for several reasons. (Id. ¶¶52-57.)
`
`First, a POSITA would have understood the benefits of allowing users to ad-
`
`just the size of images and text being rendered. (Id. ¶53.) Indeed, Duncan teaches
`
`that display scalability would beneficially accommodate people with visual impair-
`
`ments. (EX-1027 ¶[0005]; EX-1002 ¶53.) Moreover, a POSITA understood that
`
`adjusting component sizing improved user comfort as different users may prefer dif-
`
`ferent text or image sizes depending on their vision, screen size, or reading prefer-
`
`ence. (EX-1002 ¶53.) Allowing the client device to adjust the sizing and/or posi-
`
`tioning of displayed components also ensures optimal viewing on a device regardless
`
`of screen size or device capabilities. (Id.)
`
`Second, Duncan explains that the preferred output modes for its system align
`
`with Prabhakaran’s presentation (e.g., including “visual graphics and sound”).
`
`(EX-1027 ¶¶[0008]-[0009]; EX-1002 ¶54.)
`
`Third, Prabhakaran states that “presentation of multimedi
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
