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. IPR2025-00777
`U.S. Patent No. 9,319,720
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,319,720
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`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. IPR2025-00777
`U.S. Patent No. 9,319,720
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,319,720
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ----------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`BACKGROUND ------------------------------------------------------------ 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Segmenting Media Content Was Known ------------------------- 1
`
`Descriptor Files for Synchronizing Media Content Were
`Known ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2
`
`Identifying a File Using a Time Offset and a Descriptor
`File Was Known ------------------------------------------------------ 3
`
`
`
`THE ’720 PATENT --------------------------------------------------------- 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Overview -------------------------------------------------------------- 3
`
`
`
`
`
`Prosecution ------------------------------------------------------------ 4
`
`Priority ----------------------------------------------------------------- 4
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ------------------------- 4
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ------------------------------------------------ 5
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ----------------- 5
`
` Grounds ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`
`
`
`Status of References as Prior Art ----------------------------------- 6
`
`GROUND 1A: CLAIMS 1, 18, AND 25-26 WOULD HAVE
`BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF YOSHIMURA AND
`LINDAHL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`
`
`Claim 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`
`
`
`
`Preamble ------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Element-1[a] -------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Element-1[b] -------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`
`
`Descriptor File ---------------------------------------- 8
`
` Media Streams -------------------------------------- 10
`
`
`
`Same Originating Work ---------------------------- 11
`
`
`
`
`
`Yoshimura ------------------------------------ 11
`
`Lindahl---------------------------------------- 11
`
` Motivation to Combine --------------------- 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Element-1[c] ------------------------------------------------ 13
`
`Element-1[d] ------------------------------------------------ 14
`
`Element-1[e] ------------------------------------------------ 15
`
`Element-1[f] ------------------------------------------------- 17
`
`
`
`
`
`Yoshimura ------------------------------------------- 17
`
`Lindahl ----------------------------------------------- 18
`
` Motivation to Combine ---------------------------- 20
`
`Element-1[g] ------------------------------------------------ 21
`
`Element-1[h] ------------------------------------------------ 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 18 ------------------------------------------------------------- 22
`
`Claim 25 ------------------------------------------------------------- 23
`
`Claim 26 ------------------------------------------------------------- 23
`
`
`
`GROUND 1B: CLAIMS 2-10, 14-15, AND 22 WOULD
`HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF YOSHIMURA,
`LINDAHL, AND HECKERMAN --------------------------------------- 23
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- 23
`
`Claim 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- 25
`
`Claim 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- 26
`
`Claim 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- 27
`
`Claim 6 -------------------------------------------------------------- 28
`
`
`
`
`
`Element-6[a] ------------------------------------------------ 28
`
`Element-6[b] ------------------------------------------------ 28
`
`Claim 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- 29
`
`Claim 8 -------------------------------------------------------------- 29
`
`Claim 9 -------------------------------------------------------------- 30
`
`Claim 10 ------------------------------------------------------------- 30
`
`Claim 14 ------------------------------------------------------------- 30
`
`Claim 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- 31
`
`Claim 22 ------------------------------------------------------------- 31
`
`
`
`GROUND 1C: CLAIMS 5 AND 11-13 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF YOSHIMURA, LINDAHL,
`HECKERMAN, AND BULTERMAN --------------------------------- 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- 31
`
`Claim 11 ------------------------------------------------------------- 32
`
`
`
`
`
`Element-11[a] ----------------------------------------------- 32
`
`Element-11[b] ----------------------------------------------- 32
`
`Claim 12 ------------------------------------------------------------- 35
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 13 ------------------------------------------------------------- 38
`
`GROUND 1D: CLAIM 17 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`IN VIEW OF YOSHIMURA, LINDAHL, AND DTB --------------- 38
`
`GROUND 1E: CLAIM 20 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`IN VIEW OF YOSHIMURA, LINDAHL, HECKERMAN,
`AND DTB ------------------------------------------------------------------ 40
`
`GROUND 1F: CLAIMS 16 AND 24 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF YOSHIMURA, LINDAHL,
`HECKERMAN, AND HAY --------------------------------------------- 41
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 16 ------------------------------------------------------------- 41
`
`Claim 24 ------------------------------------------------------------- 42
`
`GROUND 1G: CLAIMS 19, 23, AND 27 WOULD HAVE
`BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF YOSHIMURA, LINDAHL,
`AND SULL-948 ----------------------------------------------------------- 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 19 ------------------------------------------------------------- 42
`
`Claim 23 ------------------------------------------------------------- 44
`
`Claim 27 ------------------------------------------------------------- 45
`
`GROUND 1H: CLAIM 21 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`IN VIEW OF YOSHIMURA, LINDAHL, HECKERMAN,
`AND AMIR ----------------------------------------------------------------- 45
`
`GROUND 1I: CLAIMS 28 AND 29 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF YOSHIMURA, LINDAHL, SULL-
`948, AND DTB ------------------------------------------------------------ 46
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 28 ------------------------------------------------------------- 46
`
`Claim 29 ------------------------------------------------------------- 48
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GROUND 2A: CLAIMS 1-15, 17-18, 20-22, AND 25-26
`WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF REID,
`HECKERMAN, AND OPTIONALLY STELOVSKY --------------- 49
`
`
`
`Claim 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- 49
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Preamble ----------------------------------------------------- 49
`
`Element-1[a] ------------------------------------------------ 49
`
`Element-1[b] ------------------------------------------------ 49
`
`Element-1[c] ------------------------------------------------ 52
`
`Element-1[d] ------------------------------------------------ 53
`
`Element-1[e] ------------------------------------------------ 53
`
`Element-1[f] ------------------------------------------------- 57
`
`Element-1[g] ------------------------------------------------ 58
`
`Element-1[h] ------------------------------------------------ 59
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- 60
`
`Claim 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- 60
`
`
`
`
`
`Audio Index ------------------------------------------------- 60
`
`Shared Audio/Slide Index --------------------------------- 62
`
`Claim 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- 63
`
`Claim 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- 63
`
`
`
`
`
`Element-5[a] ------------------------------------------------ 63
`
`Element-5[b] ------------------------------------------------ 64
`
`
`
`Claim 6 -------------------------------------------------------------- 64
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Element-6[a] ------------------------------------------------ 64
`
`Element-6[b] ------------------------------------------------ 64
`
`Claim 11 ------------------------------------------------------------- 65
`
`
`
`
`
`Element-11[a] ----------------------------------------------- 65
`
`Element-11[b] ----------------------------------------------- 65
`
`Claim 12 ------------------------------------------------------------- 65
`
`Claim 13 ------------------------------------------------------------- 66
`
`Claims 14 and 18 --------------------------------------------------- 67
`
`Claim 17 ------------------------------------------------------------- 68
`
`Claim 22 ------------------------------------------------------------- 68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Claims 7-10, 15, 20-21, and 25-26 ------------------------------- 69
`
` GROUND 2B: CLAIMS 16 AND 24 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF REID, HECKERMAN, HAY, AND
`OPTIONALLY STELOVSKY ------------------------------------------ 69
`
` GROUND 2C: CLAIMS 19, 23, AND 27 WOULD HAVE
`BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF REID, HECKERMAN, SULL-
`948, AND OPTIONALLY STELOVSKY ----------------------------- 70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GROUND 2D: CLAIMS 28 AND 29 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF REID, HECKERMAN, SULL-948,
`DTB, AND OPTIONALLY STELOVSKY ---------------------------- 70
`
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF
`NONOBVIOUSNESS ---------------------------------------------------- 71
`
`DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §314(A) IS NOT
`APPROPRIATE ----------------------------------------------------------- 71
`
`
`
`Factor 1: Potential Stay -------------------------------------------- 71
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Factor 2: Proximity of Trial to FWD ---------------------------- 72
`
`Factor 3: Investment in Parallel Proceeding -------------------- 73
`
`Factor 4: Overlapping Issues ------------------------------------- 74
`
`Factor 5: The Parties ----------------------------------------------- 75
`
`Factor 6: Other Circumstances ----------------------------------- 75
`
` DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §325(D) IS NOT
`APPROPRIATE ----------------------------------------------------------- 75
`
` CONCLUSION ------------------------------------------------------------ 76
`
` MANDATORY NOTICES, GROUNDS FOR STANDING,
`AND FEE PAYMENT ---------------------------------------------------- 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) --------------- 76
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) ------------------------ 76
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) ------------ 77
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)) ------------------- 78
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)) ------------------ 78
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.15(a)) ------------------------- 79
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases:
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s):
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Nokia Technologies OY,
`IPR2024-01140, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2025) ----------------------- 72, 74
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 ---------------------------------------------------- 71, 75
`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) ----------------------------------------------------- 74
`Ericsson Inc. v. XR Communications LLC,
`IPR2024-00613, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2024) ------------------------- 73, 74
`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) ------------------------------------------------------ 5
`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) ---------------------------------------------------- 5
`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
`Sec. First Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:23-cv-00097, 2024 WL 234720 (E.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2024) ------------- 71
`
`-viii-
`
`
`
`
`
`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)---------------------------- 75
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) ---------------------------- 74
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ------------------------------------------------------ 5
`Statutes and Rules:
`35 U.S.C. §102 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`35 U.S.C. §103 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`35 U.S.C. §314 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 71, 75
`35 U.S.C. §325 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 75, 76
`
`
`
`-ix-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,319,720
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,319,720 (“the ’720 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”)
`
`European Patent Publication No. EP 1463258 A1 (“Lindahl”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0069218 (“Sull-218”)
`
`Yoshimura et al., Content Delivery Network Architecture for
`Mobile Streaming Service Enabled by SMIL Modification, 86 IE-
`ICE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMC’N 1778 (2003) (“Yoshimura”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1007-1011 Not Used
`
`Excerpts from DICK C.A. BULTERMAN & LLOYD RUTLEDGE,
`SMIL 2.0, INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA FOR WEB AND MOBILE DE-
`VICES (2004) (“Bulterman”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1013-1027 Not Used
`
`1028
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0184189 (“Hay”)
`
`Exhibit Number 1029 Not Used
`
`1030
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,260,011 (“Heckerman”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1031-1039 Not Used
`
`-x-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,319,720
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1040
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1051
`
`1057
`
`1058
`
`1059
`
`Amir et al., Search the Audio, Browse the Video—A Generic
`Paradigm for Video Collections, 2003 EURASIP J. ON APPLIED
`SIGNAL PROCESSING 209 (2003) (“Amir”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1041-1042 Not Used
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,535,063 (“Lamming”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,613,909 (“Stelovsky”)
`
`Exhibit Number 1045 Not Used
`
`Tredinnick, Implementing the SMIL Specification, PROC. OF THE
`LINUX SYMP. (2003) (“Tredinnick”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0150930 (“Koivisto”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,643 (“Fischer”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1049-1050 Not Used
`
`Excerpts from World Wide Web Consortium, Synchronized Mul-
`timedia Integration Language (SMIL 2.0) Specification, W3C
`Recommendation (Aug. 7, 2001),
`https://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-smil20-
`20010807/smil20.html. (the “SMIL Standard”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1052-1056 Not Used
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,798,841 (“Takahashi”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,021,989 (“Fujisawa”)
`
`PCT Patent Publication No. WO2001/01373 (“Hendricks”)
`
`-xi-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,319,720
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1060
`
`PCT Patent Publication No. WO2002/08948A2 (“Sull-948”)
`
`Exhibit Number 1061 Not Used
`
`1062
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,208,995 (“Himmel”)
`
`1063
`
`P. Delacourt & C.J. Wellekens, DISTBIC: A speaker-based seg-
`mentation for audio data indexing, 32 SPEECH COMMUNICATION
`111 (2000) (“Delacourt”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1064-1068 Not Used
`
`1069
`
`PCT Patent Publication No. WO2002/080524A2 (“Dimitrova”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1070-1075 Not Used
`
`1076
`
`PCT Patent Publication No. WO1997/41504A1 (“Reid”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1077-1079 Not Used
`
`1080
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0091338 (“Snow”)
`
`1085
`
`1086
`
`1091
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1081-1084 Not Used
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0147979 (“Corson”)
`
`PCT Patent Publication No. WO2001/24474 (“Shteyn”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1087-1090 Not Used
`
`C. Duarte & Luís Carriço, Usability Evaluation of Digital Talk-
`ing Books, PROC. 1ST NAT’L CONF. ON HUMAN-COMPUTER INTER-
`ACTION 2004 (June 2004) (“Duarte”)
`
`-xii-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,319,720
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1095
`
`1096
`
`1097
`
`1098
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1092-1094 Not Used
`
`Excerpts from the File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,319,720
`
`CV of Professor Ketan Mayer-Patel, Ph.D.
`
`Declaration of Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis, Ph.D.
`
`Audio Pod’s Infringement Contentions for U.S. Patent No.
`9,319,720 in Audio Pod IP, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 3:24-cv-
`00407 (E.D. Va.)
`
`-xiii-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,319,720
`
`Petitioners Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon Web
`
`Services, Inc., and Audible, Inc. (“Petitioners” or “Amazon”) request inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 9,319,720 (“the ’720 patent”), which Audio
`
`Pod IP, LLC (“Patent Owner” or “PO”) purportedly owns.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’720 patent relates to rendering digital content on a media player. The
`
`claims recite three basic concepts: (1) segmenting media content into files; (2) using
`
`a descriptor file with timing information to synchronize media content; and (3) using
`
`a time offset and a descriptor file to identify a particular file. These concepts were
`
`well-known and their combination would have been obvious. Thus, the Board
`
`should cancel the claims.
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Segmenting Media Content Was Known.
`
`The ’720 patent acknowledges dividing media into separate files was known
`
`before the patent’s earliest possible priority date in December 13, 2005. (EX-1001,
`
`2:18-23.) Indeed, it was routine. (See, e.g., EX-1006, 1778-81; EX-1003, 6, 17, 19-
`
`20; EX-1085, Abstract, ¶¶[0052]-[0054]; EX-1086, Abstract, 2:11-27; EX-1002
`
`¶32.) For example, Yoshimura disclosed dividing content into segments that are
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,319,720
`
`stored as separate files on servers. (EX-1006, 1779-80, Fig. 3; EX-1002 ¶32.) Heck-
`
`erman similarly disclosed segmenting audio and text data into multiple audio and
`
`text data files. (EX-1030, claim 22; EX-1002 ¶32.)
`
` Descriptor Files for Synchronizing Media Content Were
`Known.
`
`It was also common by 2005 to use descriptor files with timing information
`
`to synchronize the playback of media files. (See generally EX-1051; EX-1006;
`
`EX-1003; EX-1012; EX-1076; EX-1002 ¶33.) In the 1990s, Reid disclosed using
`
`descriptor files for synchronizing multimedia presentations. (EX-1076; EX-1002
`
`¶33.) In 2001, the Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL) file, a
`
`well-known descriptor file for synchronizing the playback of media files (e.g., text,
`
`images or audio) over the Internet, was adopted as a standard. (EX-1051; EX-1012;
`
`EX-1002 ¶33.) The below diagram demonstrates how various media streams (e.g.,
`
`audio, images, etc.) are organized, via a SMIL file, to provide a synchronized presen-
`
`tation, with each media stream’s rendering based on the timeline of an audio file:
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,319,720
`
`
`
`(EX-1012, 128; EX-1002 ¶33.)
`
`
`
`Identifying a File Using a Time Offset and a Descriptor File
`Was Known.
`
`Digital bookmarks, which identify a particular time (or “time offset”) in a me-
`
`dia stream, were well known by 2005. (EX-1002 ¶34.) Bookmarks were routinely
`
`used with a descriptor file to identify the associated media file for playback or down-
`
`load. (EX-1004 ¶¶[0035]-[0036], [0040]-[0041]; EX-1003, 45-50; EX-1005
`
`¶¶[0008], [0175]; EX-1047 ¶¶[0003]-[0032]; EX-1002 ¶34.)
`
`
`
`THE ’720 PATENT
`
` Overview
`
`The ’720 patent describes storing on servers multiple media streams, where
`
`each stream is segmented into multiple files. (EX-1001, Abstract, 5:59-6:7;
`
`EX-1002 ¶35.) The server also stores a descriptor file with time information about
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,319,720
`
`each file that is used to synchronize the media files. (EX-1001, 6:20-65; EX-1002
`
`¶35.) The descriptor file identifies particular files for playback using the descriptor
`
`file’s time information and a time offset provided by the user (e.g., from a book-
`
`mark). (EX-1001, 19:51-20:26; EX-1002 ¶35.) The media files can then be down-
`
`loaded and rendered synchronously on the media player. (EX-1001, Abstract, 38:13-
`
`33; EX-1002 ¶35.)
`
`
`
`Prosecution
`
`During prosecution, the Examiner repeatedly rejected the pending claims as
`
`obvious. (EX-1095, 188-205, 133-56, 63-97.) PO amended the independent claims
`
`to add limitations 1[c], 1[d], and 1[e]. (Id., 42-61.) The Examiner then allowed the
`
`claims. (Id., 18-24.)
`
`
`
`Priority
`
`The ’720 patent’s earliest possible priority date is December 13, 2005.
`
`(EX-1001, 1.) Petitioners do not concede the claims are entitled to that priority 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). 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,
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,319,720
`
`development, and/or implementation of content rendering and/or distribution sys-
`
`tems. (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.)
`
`
`
`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 under §112 and interprets the claims consistent with PO’s Infringement
`
`Contentions. (EX-1098.)
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
` Grounds
`
`The Board should cancel the claims under §103 on the following Grounds:
`
`Ground Claims Challenged
`1A
`1, 18, 25-26
`
`References
`Yoshimura and Lindahl
`
`1B
`
`1C
`
`1D
`
`1E
`
`2-10, 14-15, 22
`
`Yoshimura, Lindahl, and Heckerman
`
`5, 11-13
`
`Yoshimura, Lindahl, Heckerman, and
`Bulterman
`
`17
`
`20
`
`Yoshimura, Lindahl, and DTB
`
`Yoshimura, Lindahl, Heckerman, and DTB
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,319,720
`
`Ground Claims Challenged
`1F
`16, 24
`
`References
`Yoshimura, Lindahl, Heckerman, and Hay
`
`1G
`
`1H
`
`1I
`
`2A
`
`2B
`
`2C
`
`2C
`
`19, 23, 27
`
`Yoshimura, Lindahl, and Sull-948
`
`21
`
`28, 29
`
`1-15, 17-18, 20-22,
`25-26
`
`Yoshimura, Lindahl, Heckerman, and Amir
`
`Yoshimura, Lindahl, Sull-948, and DTB
`
`Reid, Heckerman, and optionally Stelovsky
`
`16, 24
`
`19, 23, 27
`
`28-29
`
`Reid, Heckerman, Hay, and optionally
`Stelovsky
`
`Reid, Heckerman, Sull-948, and optionally
`Stelovsky
`
`Reid, Heckerman, Sull-948, DTB, and
`optionally Stelovsky
`
`
`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 §102(b) because it published more
`
`than one year before the ’720 patent’s earliest possible priority date of December 13,
`
`2005:
`
`Reference
`Yoshimura
`DTB
`Lindahl
`Heckerman
`Bulterman
`
`Publication Date
`September 29, 2003
`March 19, 2002
`September 29, 2004
`July 10, 2001
`May 1, 2004
`
`Exhibit
`EX-1006; see EX-1097
`EX-1003; see EX-1097
`EX-1004
`EX-1030
`EX-1012; see EX-1097
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,319,720
`
`Reference
`Stelovsky
`Amir
`Hay
`Sull-948
`Reid
`
`Publication Date
`March 25, 1997
`February 25, 2003
`December 5, 2002
`January 31, 2002
`November 6, 1997
`
`Exhibit
`EX-1044
`EX-1040; see EX-1097
`EX-1028
`EX-1060
`EX-1076
`
`
`These references are analogous art because they are from the same field of
`
`endeavor as the ’720 patent, e.g., content distribution and/or rendering. (EX-1002
`
`¶22. 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.)
`
` GROUND 1A: CLAIMS 1, 18, AND 25-26 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF YOSHIMURA AND LINDAHL.
`
` Claim 1
`Preamble
`
`
`
`The preamble recites “[a] method of rendering digital content.” Yoshimura
`
`discloses “a CDN (Content Delivery Network) for mobile streaming” that delivers
`
`“multimedia content” to “mobile clients” to render. (EX-1006, 1778; id., 1780-81.)
`
`If the preamble is limiting, Yoshimura discloses it. (EX-1002 ¶¶38-39.)
`
`
`
`Element-1[a]
`
`Element 1[a] recites “providing a media player having access to at least one
`
`server via a network.”
`
`Yoshimura discloses a “mobile streaming media CDN” in which clients ac-
`
`cess servers via a network:
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,319,720
`
`
`
`(EX-1006, Fig. 21, 1778 (CDN includes servers and client), 1779, 1780 (CDN in-
`
`cludes portal servers, content servers, and surrogate servers).) The clients are media
`
`players. (Id., 1780, 1781 (content “played and displayed”); EX-1002 ¶41.) Accord-
`
`ingly, Yoshimura discloses providing a media player (e.g., client) having access to
`
`at least one server (e.g., content provider, portal, and/or cache/surrogate servers) via
`
`a network. (EX-1002 ¶¶40-42.)
`
`
`
`Element-1[b]
`
`Element 1[b] recites “the at least one server having stored thereon a descriptor
`
`file and a plurality of media streams derived from a same originating written work.”
`
`
`
`Descriptor File
`
`Yoshimura’s portal server takes a SMIL file attached to “original” content,
`
`segments the content into smaller files, and creates a modified SMIL file “to describe
`
`the timing relations among these segments” as shown in Figure 3:
`
`
`1 Figures herein may be colored or annotated.
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,319,720
`
`(EX-1006, 1780, Fig. 3 (“Modified SMIL” file on portal server); EX-1002 ¶44.) An
`
`example of a “modified SMIL” file is shown in Figure 5:
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,319,720
`
`(EX-1006, Fig. 5; id., 1780-81; EX-1002 ¶44.) This modified SMIL file identifies
`
`files for different content streams from the same work, for example audio (content-
`
`A.mp4) and video (content-V.mp4) files. (EX-1006, 1780-81 (defining “content
`
`names”), 1782.) The “modified SMIL files indicate the names, durations, and rela-
`
`tions of the segments.” (Id., 1781.) For example, each segment is played sequen-
`
`tially for the duration defined by the “<par dur>” entry. (Id.) Thus, the modified
`
`SMIL file is a “descriptor file” at least because it identifies and provides timing in-
`
`formation for content. (EX-1002 ¶44; EX-1001, 3:6-11 (descriptor file “defines a
`
`plurality of digital media files” using time information), Abstract, 18:27-41, 19:26-
`
`20:9, Figs. 5c, 6, 20, 22, Table 1.)
`
` Media Streams
`
`Yoshimura’s portal servers also store, for example, two streams: (a) segments
`
`of “‘content-A.mp4’ for audio content”; and (b) segments of “‘content-V.mp4’ for
`
`video content.” (EX-1006, 1780-81; EX-1002 ¶45.) Yoshimura’s server divides the
`
`original audio file into smaller files and stores the segments on the portal server
`
`before sending the segments to a content server for storage. (EX-1006, 1780; id.,
`
`1780 (content stored on surrogate servers), 1782-83; EX-1002 ¶45.)
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,319,720
`
`
`Same Originating Work
`
`
`
`Yoshimura
`
`Yoshimura distributes “streaming content” including audio and video streams.
`
`(EX-1006, 1779-81; EX-1002 ¶46.) It would have been obvious that those streams
`
`would be derived from the same written work. (EX-1002 ¶46.) For example, it
`
`would have been obvious to use Yoshimura to distribute audio and video streams of
`
`movies or television, which would be derived from the same written work—a script.
`
`(Id.; see also EX-1001, 18:44-45; EX-1098, 5 (PO asserting audio and video of a
`
`movie originates from the same written work (script)).) It would have also been
`
`obvious that Yoshimura’s media streams would include audio with images or text
`
`from a book, as audiobooks were widely known. (EX-1002 ¶46.) Such streams
`
`were derived from the same written work—a book. (Id.) Indeed, a POSITA would
`
`have understood Yoshimura to disclose streaming all media content supported by
`
`SMIL, e.g., text, audio, and images. (EX-1003, vii, 3; EX-1012, 108, 123; EX-1002
`
`¶46.)
`
`
`
`Lindahl
`
`Lindahl discloses a system for transmitting audiobooks using a network.
`
`(EX-1004 ¶¶[0001], [0010], [0015]-[0017], [0019]-[0024], [0030], [0043]-[0045],
`
`claims 1-12, Fig. 1.) The audiobooks include multiple media streams (e.g., au-
`
`dio/text) derived from the same written work. (Id. ¶¶[0004], [0001]; EX-1002 ¶47.)
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,319,720
`
`Thus, Yoshimura, alone or with Lindahl, renders obvious at least one server
`
`(e.g., content provider, portal, and/or cache/surrogate servers) having stored thereon
`
`a descriptor file (e.g., modified SMIL file) and a plurality of media streams (e.g.,
`
`audio/video/text) derived from a same originating written work (e.g., script/book).
`
`(EX-1002 ¶¶43-48.)
`
` Motivation to Combine
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to transmit audiobooks (as in Lindahl)
`
`using Yoshimura’s system. (Id. ¶¶49-53.)
`
`First, Yoshimura teaches transmitting media content using SMIL files to “en-
`
`hance[] streaming media quality … while utilizing network recourses efficiently.”
`
`(EX-1006, 1778.) It improves caching by dividing files into smaller segments and
`
`allows for “easily manag[ing] the timing and spatial relations among these seg-
`
`ments.” (Id., 1779.) It also “enables efficient pre-fetch,” can be applied to any
`
`XML-related technology, is 3G compliant, and is easily implemented. (Id.) A
`
`POSITA would have been motivated to use Yoshimura’s approach for transmitting
`
`audiobooks to obtain these benefits. (EX-1002 ¶50.)
`
`Second, SMIL files, as in Yoshimura, were routinely used to transmit audio-
`
`books. (EX-1004 ¶¶[0002]-[0003] (audiobooks transmitted using DAISY);
`
`EX-1003, vii, 3, 6-7, 21 (DAISY audiobook standard based on SMIL); EX-1046,
`
`432; EX-1002 ¶51.)
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 9,319,720
`
`Third, because audiobooks were widely known and supported, transmitting
`
`them using Yoshimura’s system would have been a simple substitution of one known
`
`element/technique (Lindahl’s audio/text streams) for another (Yoshimura’s au-
`
`dio/video streams) in a known device ready for improvement to obtain predictable
`
`results (improved delivery of audiobooks). (EX-1004 ¶¶[0002]-[0003], [0005];
`
`EX-1002 ¶52); KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
`
`A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in transmitting audio-
`
`books using Yoshimura’s system at least because Yoshimura already uses “modified
`
`SMIL files” to “enable multimedia content to be delivered” (EX-1006, 1778), and
`
`because using SMIL files for audiobooks was widely known (EX-1004 ¶[0004];
`
`EX-1003, vii, 3). (EX-1002 ¶53.)
`
`
`
`Element-1[c]
`
`Element 1[c] recites “each media stream including a plurality of digital data
`
`files.”
`
`Yoshimura discloses “segmenting” the media content on its portal server into
`
`mult
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
