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. IPR2025-00769
` U.S. Patent No. 9,954,922
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,954,922
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`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. IPR2025-00769
` U.S. Patent No. 9,954,922
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,954,922
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION --------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`BACKGROUND AND STATE OF THE ART ----------------------------- 1
`
`A. Downloading, Storing, and Bookmarking Media Files
`Was Known --------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`B. Memory Management For Media Content Was Known ------------ 2
`
`III. THE ’922 PATENT ------------------------------------------------------------- 3
`
`A. Overview ------------------------------------------------------------------ 3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Claims --------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
`
`Prosecution ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`
`Priority --------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ----------------------------- 6
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ---------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`VI. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED --------------------- 7
`
`A. Grounds -------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`B.
`
`Status of References as Prior Art --------------------------------------- 7
`
`VII. GROUND 1A: CLAIMS 1-3, 7-15, AND 17-20 WOULD
`HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF WEISMAN, GUO,
`AND AVIANI -------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`A.
`
`Claim 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`1.
`
`Preamble ----------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`1[a]: Downloading First Content ------------------------------- 9
`
`1[b]: Storing First Content ------------------------------------- 11
`
`1[c]: Rendering First Content ---------------------------------- 13
`
`1[d]: Tracking Position ----------------------------------------- 13
`
`1[e]: Bookmarking ---------------------------------------------- 15
`
`1[f]: Transferring the Bookmark ------------------------------ 17
`
`1[g]: Downloading Second Content --------------------------- 18
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Second Portion of the First Media Stream ------------ 19
`
`Second Media Stream ----------------------------------- 19
`
`9.
`
`1[h]: Storing Second Content ---------------------------------- 21
`
`10.
`
`1[i]: Rendering Second Content ------------------------------- 21
`
`11. Memory Management Limitations ---------------------------- 23
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`The ’922 Patent’s Memory Management ------------- 23
`
`1[j]: Identifying Content to Be Retained -------------- 23
`
`i. Weisman------------------------------------------- 23
`
`ii.
`
`Guo ------------------------------------------------- 25
`
`iii. Motivation to Combine Weisman
`with Guo ------------------------------------------- 27
`
`c.
`
`1[k]: Releasing Storage --------------------------------- 29
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`1[l]: Determining Available Storage ------------------ 30
`
`1[m]: Narrowing Content to Be Retained ------------ 37
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`Claim 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 41
`
`Claim 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 41
`
`Claim 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 42
`
`Claim 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 42
`
`Claim 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 43
`
`Claim 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 44
`
`Claim 11 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 45
`
`Claim 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 46
`
`Claim 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 47
`
`Claim 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 48
`
`Claim 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 49
`
`M. Claim 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 50
`
`N.
`
`O.
`
`P.
`
`Claim 18 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 51
`
`Claim 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 52
`
`Claim 20 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 53
`
`iii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`VIII. GROUND 1B: CLAIMS 2-6 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF WEISMAN, GUO, AVIANI, AND
`LOUKOPOULOS -------------------------------------------------------------- 53
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Claim 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 54
`
`Claim 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 55
`
`Claim 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 55
`
`Claim 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 56
`
`Claim 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 57
`
`IX. GROUND 1C: CLAIM 16 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`IN VIEW OF WEISMAN, GUO, AVIANI, AND SULL ----------------- 59
`
`X. GROUND 2A: CLAIMS 1-3, 7-15, AND 17-20 WOULD
`HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF WEISMAN AND
`OTTESEN ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 61
`
`A.
`
`Claim 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 61
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`1[j]: Identifying Content to Be Retained --------------------- 61
`
`1[k]: Releasing Storage ----------------------------------------- 64
`
`1[l]: Determining Available Storage -------------------------- 65
`
`1[m]: Narrowing Content To Be Retained ------------------- 67
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Claim 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 68
`
`Claim 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 69
`
`Claim 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 70
`
`iv
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Claim 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 70
`
`Claim 18 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 71
`
`Claim 20 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 71
`
`XI. GROUND 2B: CLAIMS 2-6 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF WEISMAN, OTTESEN, AND
`LOUKOPOULOS -------------------------------------------------------------- 71
`
`XII. GROUND 2C: CLAIM 16 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`IN VIEW OF WEISMAN, OTTESEN, AND SULL ---------------------- 71
`
`XIII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ---------------------------------------- 71
`
`XIV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §314(A) IS NOT
`APPROPRIATE ---------------------------------------------------------------- 72
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Factor 1: Potential Stay ------------------------------------------------- 72
`
`Factor 2: Proximity of Trial to FWD --------------------------------- 73
`
`Factor 3: Investment in Parallel Proceeding ------------------------- 74
`
`Factor 4: Overlapping Issues ------------------------------------------ 75
`
`Factor 5: The Parties ---------------------------------------------------- 75
`
`Factor 6: Other Circumstances ---------------------------------------- 76
`
`XV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §325(D) IS NOT
`APPROPRIATE ---------------------------------------------------------------- 76
`
`XVI. CONCLUSION ----------------------------------------------------------------- 77
`
`v
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`XVII. MANDATORY NOTICES, GROUNDS FOR STANDING,
`AND FEE PAYMENT --------------------------------------------------------- 77
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) ---------------------- 77
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) ----------------------------- 77
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) ----------------- 78
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)) ------------------------ 80
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)) ----------------------- 80
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.15(a)) ------------------------------ 80
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page No(s).
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Nokia Technologies OY,
`IPR2024-01140, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2025) ----------------------- 73, 75
`
`Apple v. Fintiv,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) --------------------- 72, 76
`
`Aptiv Services US, LLC v. Microchip Technology, Inc.,
`IPR2024-00646, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 25, 2024) -------------------------- 73
`
`Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd.,
`25 F.4th 976 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ----------------------------------------------------- 75
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. XR Communications LLC,
`IPR2024-00613, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2024) ------------------------- 74, 75
`
`Google LLC v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2022-00630, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 13, 2022) -------------------------- 75
`
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ------------------------------------------------------ 6
`
`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) --------------------------------------------------- 71
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ---------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`Quasar Sci. LLC v. Colt Int’l Clothing, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00611, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 10, 2023) --------------------------- 76
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. v. Empire Technology Development LLC,
`IPR2024-00896, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2024) -------------------------- 74
`
`vii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No(s).
`
`Sec. First Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:23-cv-00097, 2024 WL 234720 (E.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2024) ------------- 72
`
`Sharpe Innovations, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-00351, 2018 WL 11198604
`(E.D. Va. Jan. 10, 2018) ----------------------------------------------------------- 72
`
`Shenzen Chic Elecs. v. Pilot, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00810, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2023)---------------------------- 76
`
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) ---------------------------- 75
`
`Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc.,
`957 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ---------------------------------------------- 46, 47
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016) -------------------------------------------------- 8, 10
`
`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, 8
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`35 U.S.C. §325 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 76, 77
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,954,922
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,954,922 (“the ’922 patent”)
`
`1002
`
`Declaration of Professor Ketan Mayer-Patel
`
`Exhibit Number 1003 Not Used
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1035
`
`1036
`1037
`
`1038
`
`European Patent Publication No. EP 1463258 A1 (“Lindahl”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0069218 (“Sull”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1006-1034 Not Used
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0148638 (“Weisman”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,398,312 (“Guo”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,950,205 (“Aviani”)
`
`Loukopoulos et al., An Overview of Data Replication on the In-
`ternet, PROC. INT’L SYMP. ON PARALLEL ARCHITECTURES, ALGO-
`RITHMS AND NETWORKS (2002) (“Loukopoulos”)
`
`1039
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,930,493 (“Ottesen”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1040-1076 Not Used
`U.S. Patent No. 5,652,613 (“Lazarus”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0093790 (“Logan”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1079-1094 Not Used
`Excerpts from the File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,954,922
`
`CV of Professor Ketan Mayer-Patel, Ph.D.
`
`Declaration of Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis, Ph.D.
`
`1077
`
`1078
`
`1095
`
`1096
`
`1097
`
`List of Exhibits, Page 1
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,954,922
`Amazon.com Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon Web Services, Inc.,
`
`and Audible, Inc. (“Petitioners” or “Amazon”) respectfully request inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,954,922 (“the ’922 patent”), which Audio
`
`Pod IP, LLC (“Patent Owner” or “PO”) purportedly owns.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’922 patent relates to rendering digital content on two devices. The
`
`claims recite the well-known steps of: (1) downloading, storing, and rendering
`
`content on a first device; (2) creating a bookmark on the first device and transferring
`
`it to a second device; (3) downloading, storing, and rendering content on the second
`
`device; and (4) releasing unneeded content from storage to free up memory. Because
`
`the ’922 patent claims these well-known steps in the same way they were used in the
`
`prior art, the claims would have been obvious. The Board should cancel them.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND STATE OF THE ART
`A. Downloading, Storing, and Bookmarking Media Files Was
`Known.
`
`Weisman discloses delivering multimedia files to a client device (called a
`
`“station”) over a network. (EX-1035, Abstract, Fig. 1; EX-1002 ¶32.) The “head-
`
`end” (which includes a server) receives a request for media and transmits a first
`
`portion of the media to the client. (Id.) The transmission may be suspended. (Id.)
`
`If transmission is later resumed, the head-end sends a second portion of media and
`
`uses stored bookmark data to indicate the starting location in the second portion.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,954,922
`(Id.) Weisman further teaches transferring bookmarks among users. (EX-1035
`
`¶¶[0135]-[0138].) Weisman also teaches that the client includes a buffer to down-
`
`load and store content so a user can access that content even if the network connec-
`
`tion is interrupted. (Id. ¶¶[0277]-[0287], Fig. 5.)
`
`B. Memory Management For Media Content Was Known.
`
`Aviani discloses a method for storing multimedia objects in a cache memory.
`
`(EX-1037, Abstract; EX-1002 ¶33.) This cache memory temporarily stores objects
`
`recently downloaded over the Internet. (EX-1037, 1:30-38.) When the cache
`
`memory “is insufficient to accommodate a new multimedia object, the new
`
`multimedia object is written from the beginning of the cache memory, thereby
`
`writing over a previously stored” object. (Id., Abstract.) Aviani “allocates disk
`
`space for subsequent writing of data,” and creates a file after an object has “been
`
`retrieved by the caching engine from a remote server.” (Id., 8:1-9.) The size of the
`
`object is determined, and the free disk space is computed. (Id., 8:5-25.) If there is
`
`not enough free space, the system deletes objects until the “requisite amount of
`
`memory has been freed up.” (Id., 8:35-37, 8:54-67, Fig, 4.)
`
`Guo discloses a method to enhance cache memory management. (EX-1036,
`
`Abstract, 2:57-61; EX-1002 ¶34.) Guo segments “streaming multimedia objects
`
`(SM objects) into smaller units (i.e., chunks)” allowing improved “cache placement
`
`and replacement policies.” (EX-1036, 2:61-67.) The chunks are saved and replaced
`
`2
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,954,922
`independently, which “significantly” increases cache storage utilization. (Id., 6:24-
`
`30, Fig. 5a.) Guo teaches a “Cache Replacement Policy” that “specifies which cache
`
`item(s) should be removed … when the cache is full or nearly full.” (Id., 3:56-58;
`
`10:45-60.)
`
`Ottesen is directed to a multimedia server system that sends program segments
`
`to a local display. (EX-1039, Abstract; EX-1002 ¶35.) Ottesen stores a window
`
`(e.g., 30 minutes) of content at a client. (EX-1039, 20:33-51; Fig. 12.) Ottesen
`
`determines the available storage capacity and requests a narrowed window if needed.
`
`(Id., 40:56-41:9, Fig. 21.) Ottesen’s control window can be stored as multiple
`
`segments within memory. (Id., 30:15-19.) As the user watches, the video segments
`
`of the presentation control window “will be replaced by newly received video
`
`segments.” (Id., 33:31-35; id., 33:40-60.) When the memory is filled, Ottesen will
`
`“overwrit[e] previously stored program segments.” (Id., 45:66-46:5, Fig. 24.)
`
`III. THE ’922 PATENT
`A. Overview
`
`The ’922 patent is primarily directed to distributing, rendering, and
`
`bookmarking audio. (EX-1001, 2:42-57, 7:48-59.) The patent notes that there is a
`
`“demand for a significant quantity of memory” when opening a new stream or
`
`reopening a bookmarked stream. (Id., 12:60-62.) If there is not sufficient memory
`
`available, older content is purged. (Id., 12:66-13:37, Fig. 13.) For bookmarked
`
`3
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,954,922
`streams, this involves removing segments from the end of the bookmarked content.
`
`(Id.) At an extreme, the entire bookmarked content is removed. (Id., 13:32-34.)
`
`B. Claims
`
`All 20 claims are challenged in this Petition. Claim 1 (below) is representative
`
`and recites: (1) downloading, storing, and rendering content on a first device (ele-
`
`ments 1[a]-1[c]); (2) creating and transferring a bookmark to a second device (ele-
`
`ments 1[d]-1[f]); (3) downloading, storing, and rendering content on the second de-
`
`vice (elements 1[g]-1[i]); and (4) memory management (elements 1[j]-1[m]):
`
`1. A method of rendering digital content across multiple client devices com-
`prising:
`[a] downloading first digital content corresponding to a media work from a
`network accessible library to a first client device via a network, the first
`digital content including at least a first portion of a first media stream;
`[b] storing the first digital content on the first client device;
`[c] rendering at least a portion of the first digital content on the client device;
`[d] tracking a current position in the first media stream as the first digital
`content is rendered;
`[e] creating a bookmark by setting the current position as a bookmarked
`position, the bookmark including information for identifying the media
`work and the bookmarked position;
`[f] transferring the bookmark to a second client device via the network;
`[g] downloading second digital content corresponding to the media work from
`the network accessible library to the second client device via the
`network, the second digital content including at least a second portion
`of the first media stream or at least a portion of a second media stream,
`
`4
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,954,922
`the second portion of the first media stream or the portion of the second
`media stream including the bookmarked position;
`[h] storing the second digital content on the second client device;
`[i] rendering at least a portion of the second digital content on the second client
`device in dependence upon the bookmarked position;
`[j] identifying a range of content surrounding the bookmarked position in the
`second digital content as content to be retained;
`[k] releasing storage resources allocated to all content of the second digital
`content that is not identified as content to be retained on the second
`client device;
`[l] determining whether sufficient storage is available on the second client
`device to meet storage demand after releasing the storage resources
`allocated to the content of the second digital content that is not
`identified as content to be retained; and
`[m] if insufficient storage is available, narrowing the range of content
`surrounding the bookmarked position that is identified as content to be
`retained.
`Prosecution
`
`C.
`
`During prosecution, the Examiner rejected the then-pending claims as
`
`obvious. (EX-1095, 67-88.) The applicant added the memory-management
`
`limitations, after which the claims were allowed. (Id., 53-63.) Other than Sull, cited
`
`for dependent claim 16, the references relied on herein were not considered by the
`
`Examiner.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,954,922
`Priority
`D.
`
`The ’922 patent’s earliest possible priority date is December 13, 2005.
`
`(EX-1001, 1.) Petitioners do not concede that the claims are entitled to that priority
`
`date.
`
`IV. 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). A POSITA would have had at least
`
`a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer
`
`science, and at least three years of industry or academic experience in the design,
`
`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.)
`
`V. 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, Petitioner assumes the claims are
`
`not invalid as indefinite under §112.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,954,922
`VI. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Grounds
`
`The Board should cancel claims 1-20 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 on the
`
`following Grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`1A
`
`1B
`
`1C
`
`2A
`
`2B
`
`2C
`
`Challenged
`Claims
`1-3, 7-15, 17-20
`
`References
`
`Weisman, Guo, and Aviani
`
`2-6
`
`16
`
`Weisman, Guo, Aviani, and Loukopoulos
`
`Weisman, Guo, Aviani, and Sull
`
`1-3, 7-15, 17-20
`
`Weisman and Ottesen
`
`2-6
`
`16
`
`Weisman, Ottesen, and Loukopoulos
`
`Weisman, Ottesen, and Sull
`
`
`
`Additional support is included in the Declaration of Professor Ketan Mayer-
`
`Patel, Ph.D. (EX-1002.)
`
`B.
`
`Status of References as Prior Art
`
`Each reference is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) because it
`
`published more than one year before the ’922 patent’s earliest possible priority date
`
`of December 13, 2005: (i) Weisman (July 29, 2004); (ii) Aviani (September 7, 1999);
`
`(iii) Ottesen (July 27, 1999); (iv) Loukopoulos (August 7, 2002); and (v) Sull (June
`
`6, 2002). (EX-1035, 1; EX-1037, 1; EX-1039, 1; EX-1097 ¶¶45-53; EX-1005, 1.)
`
`7
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,954,922
`Guo is prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(e) because it is an issued
`
`patent filed on March 29, 2000. (EX-1036, 1.)
`
`These references are analogous art because they are from the same field of
`
`endeavor as the ’922 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.)
`
`VII. GROUND 1A: CLAIMS 1-3, 7-15, AND 17-20 WOULD HAVE
`BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF WEISMAN, GUO, AND
`AVIANI.
`
`A. Claim 1
`Preamble
`1.
`
`The preamble recites “[a] method of rendering digital content across multiple
`
`client devices.” Weisman discloses a “method and system for entertainment and
`
`information services delivered via mobile telecommunication devices” linked to a
`
`head-end database via a communication network. (EX-1035, Abstract.) Weisman
`
`can include a “plurality of stations,” such as cell phones or computers. (Id. ¶¶[0054],
`
`[0095]-[0099], Fig. 1; id. ¶¶[0065], [0089].) These render digital content. (Id.
`
`¶¶[0019], [0021], [0092], [0098]-[0099].) Weisman further teaches a media player
`
`resident on the station (client). (Id. ¶[0204], Figs. 3, 5.)
`
`8
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,954,922
`Thus, Weisman discloses a system and method of rendering digital content
`
`(e.g., digital audio) across multiple client devices (e.g., stations). (EX-1002 ¶¶39-
`
`41.)
`
`2.
`
`1[a]: Downloading First Content
`
`Element 1[a] recites “downloading first digital content corresponding to a
`
`media work from a network accessible library to a first client device via a network,
`
`the first digital content including at least a first portion of a first media stream.”
`
`Weisman discloses a method for delivering “entertainment and information
`
`services” over a “communications channel” from a “head-end” to a series of client
`
`devices (“stations”). (EX-1035 ¶¶[0049]-[0062], [0070].) The “entertainment and
`
`information services” include music, radio broadcasts, news programs, audiobooks,
`
`etc., as well as series. (Id. ¶¶[0070], [0169]-[0172].) These services are saved as
`
`“media stream[s].” (Id. ¶¶[0103], [0171], [0237]; EX-1002 ¶43.) Figure 1 illustrates
`
`Weisman’s architecture including: (1) a head-end (red) comprising a media server
`
`and a media database; and (2) two clients (“stations”) (green), wherein the head-end
`
`is connected to the clients via a network (blue). (EX-1035 ¶¶[0070], [0092], [0107],
`
`[0146]-[0147], Abstract.)
`
`9
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,954,922
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 11, ¶¶[0065], [0089]-[0092]; EX-1002 ¶43.)
`
`Weisman’s stations download audio content by sending “queries” to the head-
`
`end. (EX-1035 ¶¶[0056], [0103], claims 44, 109; id. ¶¶[0049], [0058], [0143]-
`
`[0144], Fig. 4; EX-1002 ¶44.) The head-end processes the query and returns the
`
`requested content to the station using the network connection (e.g., the Internet).
`
`(Id.) The audio content is delivered in segments that can be saved (e.g., buffered)
`
`by the stations. (EX-1035, Abstract, claims 1, 48, ¶¶[0277]-[0284], Fig. 5; infra
`
`§VII.A.3; EX-1002 ¶44.) Upon receipt, a station renders the digital content.
`
`
`1 Figures herein may be colored and/or annotated for clarity.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,954,922
`(EX-1035 ¶¶[0098]-[0099] (streaming media plugins), [0186], Fig. 3; id. ¶[0031];
`
`EX-1002 ¶44.)
`
`Thus, Weisman discloses or renders obvious downloading first digital content
`
`corresponding to a media work (e.g., audiobook, news program, series, etc.) from a
`
`network accessible library (e.g., head-end) to a first client device (e.g., first station)
`
`via a network, the first digital content including at least a first portion of a first media
`
`stream (e.g., audio stream comprising audiobook, program, series, etc.). (EX-1002
`
`¶¶42-45.)
`
`3.
`
`1[b]: Storing First Content
`
`Element 1[b] recites “storing the first digital content on the first client device.”
`
`Weisman’s media player can be resident on the station, which allows the user
`
`to download and store content so it can be played even if the network connection is
`
`severed. (EX-1035 ¶[0204].) Figure 5 shows an exemplary memory storage buffer
`
`used to store content at the station. (Id. ¶¶[0069], [0277]-[0278], [0280], claim 48.)
`
`11
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,954,922
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 5; EX-1002 ¶47.) The buffer stores “received portions of the desired pro-
`
`gram before being played.” (EX-1035 ¶[0057]; id. ¶¶[0280], [0282], [0284], Fig. 5,
`
`claims 48, 113.) The stored content is shown above in blue. (EX-1002 ¶47.)
`
`Thus, Weisman discloses storing the first digital content (e.g., portion of an
`
`entertainment and information service) on the first client device (e.g., station).
`
`(EX-1002 ¶¶46-48.)
`
`12
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,954,922
`1[c]: Rendering First Content
`4.
`
`Element 1[c] recites “rendering at least a portion of the first digital content on
`
`the client device.”
`
`Weisman discloses that a station can play audio using a digital media player
`
`such as “RealAudio” or “Quicktime.” (EX-1035 ¶¶[0099], [0182], [0186].) Figure
`
`3 illustrates a media player’s interface while “playback is in progress.” (Id. ¶[0067],
`
`Fig. 3.)
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 3; id. ¶¶[0204] (media player on station), [0182], claims 48, 113.)
`
`
`
`Thus, Weisman discloses rendering (e.g., playing) at least a portion of the first
`
`digital content (e.g., portion of the entertainment and information service) on the
`
`client device (e.g., station). (EX-1002 ¶¶49-51.)
`
`5.
`
`1[d]: Tracking Position
`
`Element 1[d] recites “tracking a current position in the first media stream as
`
`the first digital content is rendered.”
`
`13
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,954,922
`Weisman discloses computing the media’s play position “continually or
`
`periodically” locally by the station. (EX-1035 ¶¶[0196]-[0197], [0199], [0204],
`
`claims 22 (tracking “current position”), 93, 62 (station displays title and “time
`
`remaining”), 127.) For example, Figure 3 shows Weisman’s station tracking the
`
`current position of the media and providing the user with a “time left” display:
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 3, ¶¶[0124], [0196]-[0197]; EX-1002 ¶53.) The system stores and updates
`
`the position information from the media player (located on the station or the head-
`
`end) in a “position column” of a “Player” table. (EX-1035 ¶¶[0186]-[0188], [0196],
`
`Fig. 4; EX-1002 ¶53.)
`
`
`
`Thus, Weisman discloses tracking a current position (e.g., time position) in
`
`the first media stream (e.g., audio stream comprising audiobook, program, series,
`
`etc.) as the first digital content (e.g., portion of an entertainment and information
`
`service) is rendered. (EX-1002 ¶¶52-54.)
`
`14
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,954,922
`1[e]: Bookmarking
`6.
`
`Element 1[e] recites “creating a bookmark by setting the current position as a
`
`bookmarked position, the bookmark including information for identifying the media
`
`work and the bookmarked position.”
`
`Weisman discloses creating a bookmark using the current position in multiple
`
`ways. (EX-1002 ¶¶55-60.)
`
`First, if playback is interrupted, the system creates a bookmark at that position
`
`and stores it in the “[r]ecent table.” (EX-1035, Fig. 4; id. ¶¶[0049]-[0050], [0203]-
`
`[0204], [0208]-[0209].)
`
`(Id., Fig. 4; EX-1002 ¶56.) Bookmarks include information identifying the media
`
`work (e.g., episode/song/segment’s EID), the user (e.g., UID), and the bookmarked
`
`position (e.g., position). (EX-1035 ¶¶[0151], [0171], [0203]-[0204], [0208]-[0209],
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,954,922
`[0212]-[0213].) When resuming the program, Weisman detects the “stored
`
`bookmark data,” which indicates the “starting location in the program of the second
`
`portion,” and restarts the content there. (Id. ¶¶[0049], [0213], [0219], claims 1, 73.)
`
`Second, the user can create a bookmark with the same content discussed above
`
`using a “save” button. (Id. ¶¶[0051], [0203]; EX-1002 ¶57.)
`
`Third, the user can use a “mark” button to create a bookmark stored in a
`
`“bookmark table.” (Id. ¶¶[0054], [0135], [0216], claims 26-27, 96.) The bookmark
`
`table is analogous to the recent table, and stores the “position column” with the UID
`
`and EID “in the same manner” discussed above. (Id. ¶[0216]; EX-1002 ¶58.)
`
`Weisman discloses that each of these functions (e.g., generating and storing
`
`bookmark data through exiting, saving, or marking) can be performed by the station.
`
`(EX-1035 ¶¶[0050] (“the station is configured to generate and store the stored
`
`bookmark data”), [0051], claims 3, 10-11, 75, 81-82.)
`
`Thus, Weisman discloses creating (e.g., saving or marking) a bookmark by
`
`setting the current position (e.g., time position) as a bookmarked position, the
`
`bookmark including information for identifying the media work (e.g., EID) and the
`
`bookmarked position. (EX-1002 ¶¶55-60.)
`
`16
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,954,922
`1[f]: Transferring the Bookmark
`7.
`
`Element
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
