UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FLEXIWORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No. PGR2021-00112
`U.S. Patent No. 11,029,903
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF SAMRAT BHATTACHARJEE, PH.D. IN SUPPORT
`OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FLEXIWORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No. PGR2021-00112
`U.S. Patent No. 11,029,903
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF SAMRAT BHATTACHARJEE, PH.D. IN SUPPORT
`OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENT
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY ............................. 1
`THE LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION GROUND ............................... 2
`A.
`The Written Description Does Not Actually or Inherently
`Disclose Combining the Information Apparatus and Output
`Device. ................................................................................................... 2
`The ’903 Patent’s Written Description Does Not Disclose an
`Information Apparatus Which Serves as the Output System or
`Output Device. ..................................................................................... 11
`The ’903 Patent’s Written Description Does Not Disclose an
`Information Apparatus and Output Device Which Form an
`Output System. .................................................................................... 12
`Both of Flexiworld’s Arguments Ignore the “Client Device” /
`Discovery Limitations in Claims 1, 8, and 15. .................................... 16
`The Written Description Does Not Disclose an Information
`Apparatus Doubling as an Output Controller. .................................... 18
`III. THE SUBJECT MATTER-INELIGIBILITY GROUND ............................. 19
`A.
`The ’903 Patent Claims Are Not Directed to an Improvement in
`Technology. ......................................................................................... 19
`Flexiworld Fails to Identify Any Claim Elements That Were
`Not Routine and Conventional. ........................................................... 26
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 29
`
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`LIST OF APPENDICES
`
`Further excerpts from Jill Ellsworth, Bill Barron, et al., The
`Internet 1997 Unleashed (1997)
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Appendix YY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY
`
`I, Samrat Bhattacharjee, have been retained by Petitioner Roku, Inc.
`
`(“Roku”) to investigate and opine on certain issues relating to United States Patent
`
`No. 11,029,903 (“the ’903 patent”) in Roku’s Petition for Post Grant Review of
`
`that patent. The Petition requested that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB” or “Board”) review and cancel claims 1-20 of the ’903 patent based on
`
`lack of written description and also based on subject matter ineligibility.
`
`
`
`I previously provided a declaration in support of Roku’s PGR
`
`Petition. Ex. 1002. My prior declaration provides an explanation of my
`
`qualifications and my opinions related to the two grounds of invalidity presented in
`
`Roku’s PGR Petition.
`
`
`
`I have prepared this declaration to address arguments made in
`
`Flexiworld’s Patent Owner Response (“POR”) and the supporting declaration of
`
`Flexiworld’s expert, Todor Cooklev, Ph.D. (Ex. 2009).
`
`
`
`In addition to the materials referenced and cited in my prior declaration,
`
`I have now reviewed and considered the Board’s Institution Decision (Paper 7),
`
`Flexiworld’s POR (Paper 12), Dr. Cooklev’s declaration (Ex. 2009), and the
`
`additional materials referenced and cited in this declaration.
`
`1
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`II. THE LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION GROUND
`A. The Written Description Does Not Actually or Inherently Disclose
`Combining the Information Apparatus and Output Device.
`The PTAB explained in its institution decision (Paper 7) that “the
`
`
`
`claims must be supported by sufficient disclosure of an ‘output device’ that also
`
`performs the functions of an ‘information apparatus’ [as] recited in claim 1.”
`
`Paper 7 at 32; see also id. at 31 (“The issue is whether the ’413 application and
`
`’903 patent show that the information apparatus and the output device can be
`
`combined into the same structure and all the interaction between them and other
`
`devices (e.g., servers over the Internet) be combined into one structure.”); id. at 30
`
`(“The question, which the parties can further explore at trial, is whether the
`
`disclosure shows sufficiently that the inventors had possession of a combined
`
`output/information apparatus device as claimed.”).
`
`
`
`In my opinion and based on my review of the written description of
`
`the ’903 patent, it contains no disclosures of either (i) an output device that also
`
`performs the functions of an information apparatus, or (ii) combining the output
`
`device and information apparatus into a single device that performs the functions
`
`of both devices.
`
`
`
`Both the information apparatus device and the output device are
`
`fundamental to the invention described in the written description of the ’903
`
`patent. At its core, the invention aims to make it easier for a user information
`
`2
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`apparatus to output content to different output devices. The written description
`
`states, for example, that the invention enables “pervasive output in which an
`
`information apparatus can pervasively output digital content to an output device
`
`regardless of the processing power, display screen size and memory space of the
`
`information apparatus.” ’903 patent at 1:51-56; see also id. at 2:23-25 (“[T]here is
`
`a need to allow users to easily output content and information from their pervasive
`
`computing devices to any output device.”); 4:25-28 (“Therefore, a method is
`
`needed so that a small mobile device, with limited processing capabilities, can still
`
`reasonably output digital content to various output devices.”); 4:44-47 (“Therefore,
`
`it is desirable to allow mobile users to output from their small information
`
`apparatuses to an output device the full richness of the original document
`
`content.”).
`
`
`
`One of ordinary skill would have recognized that the premise of the
`
`invention is that the user of the information apparatus wants to use a separate
`
`output device to output content. The background section of the written description
`
`repeatedly describes scenarios in which users with information apparatuses “walk
`
`up” to printers or displays to output content to those devices. Id. at 2:30-32 (“To
`
`illustrate, an information worker at an airport receiving Email in his hand-held
`
`computer may want to walk up to a nearby printer or fax machine to have his e-
`
`mail printed.”) (emphasis added); see also id. at 2:32-58 (giving repeated examples
`
`3
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`of printing or displaying content to nearby output device); 3:55-59 (describing use
`
`of printers at remote locations to print an email or PowerPoint document); 4:4-10
`
`(“[A] more convenient or automated printing and output solution is needed so that
`
`a user can simply walk up to an output device (e.g., printer or display device) and
`
`easily output a digital document ….”) (emphasis added). Notably, the invention is
`
`described primarily in the context of printing which is an output process that
`
`requires the use of a separate output device (i.e., the printer).
`
`
`
`According to the written description, the alleged invention addresses
`
`the problem that users were required to install an output device-specific driver on
`
`their information apparatus in order to output content to a printer or other output
`
`device. See, e.g., ’903 patent at 2:63-67 (“[A] user must first install in the
`
`information apparatus an output device driver (e.g., printer driver in the case the
`
`output device is a printer) corresponding to a particular output device model and
`
`make.”); 13:44-47 (“Regardless of type or sophistication level, different output
`
`devices 106 conventionally need different printer drivers or output management
`
`applications in the information apparatus 100 to provide output capability.”).
`
`
`
`It would have been clear to a POSITA from the written description
`
`that this driver problem would arise when a user wishes to use his/her information
`
`apparatus to output content to a separate output device. This is because the driver
`
`the patent discusses is a device-specific driver for the output device. Id. at 2:63-67
`
`4
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`(“an output device driver (e.g., printer driver in the case the output device is a
`
`printer) corresponding toa particular output device model and make”). The driver
`
`issue would not arise if a user simply uses his/her information apparatus itself to
`
`render content because no separate output device is being used. A POSITA would
`
`have known that computers including handheld computers come preinstalled with
`
`any drivers needed to utilize their built-in devices (e.g., displays, sound modules,
`
`modems).
`
`
`
`I see nothing whatsoever in the written description of the ’903 patent
`
`that expressly or inherently discloses combining the information apparatus and
`
`output devices into a single device that performs the roles of both devices. On the
`
`contrary, the written description consistently shows and describes these devices as
`
`being separate and distinct devices that play separate and distinct roles in the
`
`pervasive output process.
`
` Figure 1 shows information apparatus 100 as separate and distinct
`
`from output device 106.
`
`5
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`’903 patent at Fig. 1 (color annotations added). These numeric identifiers are used
`
`throughout the ’903 specification / ’413 application. The other priority
`
`applications incorporated by reference into the ’903 patent also show the
`
`information apparatus as distinct from the output device and use separate numeric
`
`identifiers for the two devices. Ex. 1006 (’765 application) at Figs. 2A, 2B
`
`(depicting information apparatus 200 separate from output device 220); Ex. 1010
`
`(’223 application) at Fig. 1 (depicting information apparatuses 100 separate from
`
`output devices 140).
`
` The information apparatus is described separately from the output
`
`device. ’903 patent at 9:10-11:61 (describing information apparatus 100 and its
`
`6
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`client application 102); 11:62-17:40 (describing output device 106). The written
`
`description also separately identifies examples of each type of device:
`
`As described herein, information apparatuses refer
`generally to computing devices, which include both
`stationary computers and mobile computing devices
`(pervasive devices). Examples of such information
`apparatuses include, without limitation, desktop
`computers, laptop computers, networked computers,
`palmtop computers (hand-held computers), personal
`digital assistants (PDAs), Internet enabled mobile
`phones, smart phones, pagers, digital capturing devices
`(e.g., digital cameras and video cameras), Internet
`appliances, e-books, information pads, and digital or web
`pads. An output device may include any one or more of
`fax machines, printers, copiers, image and/or video
`display devices (e.g., televisions, monitors and
`projectors), and audio output devices.
`Id. at 1:61-2:7 (blue highlighting on discussion of information apparatus and
`
`yellow highlighting on discussion of output device added). Notably, there is no
`
`overlap between the exemplary devices identified as possible information
`
`apparatuses and output devices.
`
`
`
`In my opinion, nothing in the written description expressly or
`
`inherently discloses using the information apparatus itself to output the content
`
`received from the server rather than sending it to a separate output device. As I
`
`discussed, the premise of the invention as described is that that the information
`
`apparatus user wants to output the content using a separate output device. As I
`
`discussed in my prior declaration, the invention involves using an application
`
`7
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`server to process content into output data that is formatted for the particular output
`
`device (e.g., printer) that the user wishes to output the content to. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶
`
`23-26.
`
` As explained in the written description, the alleged invention requires
`
`the information apparatus to provide the server with an “output device object”
`
`describing the output device the user wishes to use for output. ’903 patent at 6:40-
`
`7:39 (describing output device object). The “output device object” is described as
`
`one of “[t]hree major objects used and described in present invention.” Id. at 6:35-
`
`38. The application server uses the output device object to determine how the
`
`content should be processed into output data formatted for the output device. Id. at
`
`31:12-15 (“The server application 112 may identify, locate, invoke, launch, and or
`
`integrate the appropriate helper applications or its components based on the
`
`information (e.g., output device parameters) provided in an output device
`
`object.”) (emphasis added); 31:35-42 (“Therefore, if the output device object
`
`indicates that the output device 106 is a PostScript printer or any other that it
`
`supports, the server application 112 may not need to invoke, or download or
`
`incorporate a helper application or a helper application component such as a
`
`PostScript driver. The server application 112 may just proceed and convert the
`
`digital document into a PostScript file as print data.”); 22:61-23:2 (explaining that
`
`“[t]he processing and generation of output data [by the application server] may
`
`8
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`reflect at least in part a relationship to the output device object and or job object
`
`contained in the composite message received from client application 102.”).
`
` Nothing in the written description suggests using the application
`
`server to process content for output by the information apparatus itself. There is no
`
`mention of an “information apparatus object” alternative to the output device
`
`object, for example. Indeed, nothing in the written description even suggests that
`
`an information apparatus (as opposed to an output device) would require such
`
`processing. The ’903 patent only states that output devices require output data to
`
`be in a format that is device-dependent:
`
`An output device's input space or output data is therefore,
`in general, device dependent. Different output device
`models may have their own input spaces specified,
`designed or adopted by the output device manufacturer
`(e.g., the printer manufacturer) according to a
`specification for optimal operation. Consequently,
`different output devices usually require use of specific
`output device drivers (e.g., printer drivers) for accurate
`output (e.g., printing).
`Id. at 3:15-23. The priority applications incorporated by reference in the ‘’903
`
`patent are consistent in stating that it is the “output devices” that require data to be
`
`in a device-dependent format. See, e.g., Ex. 1006 (’765 application) at [0009]
`
`(“An output device’s input requirements are, therefore, in general device
`
`dependent. Different output device models may have their own input requirements
`
`specified, designed or adopted by the output device manufacturer (e.g., the printer
`
`9
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`manufacturer) according to a specification for optimal operation.”); Ex. 1010 (’223
`
`application) at [0007] (“A printer input space or print data is therefore, in general,
`
`device dependent. Different printer models may specify their own input, designed
`
`or adopted for optimal operation by the printer manufacturer according to a
`
`specification.”).
`
`
`
`It is not generally true that information apparatuses (e.g., computers)
`
`require content to be in a format that is truly device-dependent. For example, both
`
`today and at the time of the alleged invention, PCs of different makes, models, and
`
`form factors are able to read and render content in a wide variety of commonly-
`
`used formats (e.g., Word documents, PDF documents, JPG images, MP3 files).
`
`These are standard or widely-used formats that are not device-dependent. The ’903
`
`patent describes device-specific drivers for printers and other output devices. See,
`
`e.g., ’903 patent at 2:63-67. The same cannot be said for information apparatuses,
`
`however. There were not device-specific drivers for information apparatuses
`
`(e.g., PCs) for installation on other computing devices to enable them to convert
`
`data into formats required by the information apparatus.
`
` Although Flexiworld and Dr. Cooklev argue that some of the devices
`
`identified as information apparatuses would have been capable of being used as
`
`output devices, that argument does not address the separate question of whether the
`
`written description actually discloses using the same physical device in both roles
`
`10
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`as the information apparatus and the output device. In my opinion, the written
`
`description does not disclose this. Further, as I discussed (see supra ¶ 10), a
`
`POSITA would have recognized that the problems the alleged invention
`
`purportedly addresses would not even be relevant in the scenario where the same
`
`device is acting both as the information and the output device simultaneously.
`
` Finally, while the ’903 patent’s written description never suggests
`
`using the information apparatus itself to render any type of content, it should be
`
`noted that the ’903 claims specifically require audio or video content. For
`
`example, claim 1 recites receiving “output data [that] includes audio digital content
`
`or video digital content.” The written description never even discloses that the
`
`information apparatus devices are capable of rendering received audio or video
`
`content.
`
`B.
`
`The ’903 Patent’s Written Description Does Not Disclose an
`Information Apparatus Which Serves as the Output System or
`Output Device.
` Flexiworld and Dr. Cooklev argue that the written description of the
`
`’903 patent conveys that the claimed “output system” in claims 1-7 and 15-20 and
`
`the claimed output device in claims 8-14 can be an information apparatus alone. I
`
`disagree.
`
` As I discussed in the preceding section, the ’903 patent’s written
`
`description clearly and consistently distinguishes between the information
`
`11
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`apparatus and the output device. There are no disclosures in the written
`
`description of using the information apparatus itself (as opposed to a separate
`
`output device) to output the output data received from the server.
`
`C. The ’903 Patent’s Written Description Does Not Disclose an
`Information Apparatus and Output Device Which Form an
`Output System.
` Flexiworld and Dr. Cooklev argue that the written description of the
`
`’903 patent conveys that the claimed “output system” in claims 1-7 and 15-20 can
`
`be an information apparatus in combination with an output device. I disagree.
`
` The only evidence in the ’413 application itself that Flexiworld cites
`
`in support of this argument is a description of Fig. 1 as depicting “pervasive output
`
`system 98.” POR at 11-13; Ex. 2009, ¶ 52. But system 98 in Fig. 1 includes not
`
`only information apparatus 100 and output device 106, but also application server
`
`110, content server 114, and network 108. Ex. 2002 (’413 application) at [0045];
`
`’903 patent at 8:59-67. In my opinion, a POSITA would have understood the
`
`phrase “pervasive output system 98” in context as referring broadly to a system in
`
`which “pervasive output” can be achieved. While this phrase does include the
`
`words “output system,” those words are used in a different context than the “output
`
`system” recited in the ’903 claims. For example, the claims make clear that the
`
`servers are not part of the “output system” because they require a step of
`
`connecting the “output system” to the servers. Ex. 1003 (claim listing) at 1
`
`12
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`(element 1[g]), 11 (element 15[f]).
`
` Rather than suggest that an information apparatus and an output
`
`device combine to form an “output system,” the ’413 application uses the term
`
`“output system” synonymously with “output device.” For example, the application
`
`states that “[a]n output system or output device may include one or more of a
`
`printing system or device, a display system or device, a projection system or
`
`device, or a sound system or device.” Ex. 2002 at [0067]; see also id. (“In the case
`
`that the output system or device is a printer ….”); id. at [0028] (“Fig. 10B is an
`
`exemplary block diagram of a conventional output system or an output device such
`
`as a printing system or printer ….”); see also ’903 patent at 5:39-41, 13:27-33
`
`(corresponding disclosures). Even the abstract of the ’903 patent—which was
`
`drafted and amended between 2019 and 2021—gives examples of output systems
`
`which are output devices or controllers rather than multiple device systems
`
`including both information apparatuses and output devices. Id. at abstract (“Output
`
`systems (e.g., television controllers, audio output devices, display devices) ….”);
`
`compare id. at 2:4-7 (listing “image and/or video display devices” and “audio
`
`output devices” as examples of output devices).
`
` The only other evidence Flexiworld cites to support its argument is a
`
`one-off description of Fig. 1 of the ’223 priority application / ’541 patent which is
`
`incorporated by reference into the ’903 patent. See POR at 13-14; Ex. 2009, ¶¶ 53-
`
`13
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`54. But, again, this description is clearly using the words “output system” in a
`
`different, broader sense than the term “output system” is used in the ’903 claims.
`
`The very same figure is described as “a block diagram illustrating exemplary
`
`components of an electronic communication system that may provide an
`
`operating environment for the present invention ….” Ex. 1010 (’223 application)
`
`at [0038] (emphasis added); Ex. 2007 (’541 patent) at 6:65-7:2 (corresponding
`
`disclosure). Notably, the ’223 application includes claims that recite connecting
`
`the information apparatus to the “output system” which makes clear they are
`
`separate. Id. at 61, claim 66 (reciting “establishing a communication channel
`
`between the information apparatus and the selected output system”); id. at 62,
`
`claim 78 (similar).
`
` Of all the priority applications, it is the ’765 application that uses the
`
`term “output system” the most. As I noted in my prior declaration, the ’765
`
`application uses “output system” to refer to the combination of an output device
`
`and an external output controller. Ex. 1002 ¶ 72.
`
`14
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006 (’765 application) at Fig. 2B (annotations added); see also id. at [0076]
`
`(“The output system 250 includes an output device 220 and an output controller
`
`230 which may be externally connected to, or otherwise associated with, the output
`
`device 220 in the output system 250.”); see also, e.g., id. at [0110], [0193].
`
` The ’765 application also sometimes uses the “output system”
`
`synonymously with “output device.” Id. at [0046] (“Fig. 4B is a block diagram of
`
`a second conventional output system or output device.”), [0048] (“Fig. 5B is a
`
`schematic block diagram of a second output system or output device that includes
`
`an output controller in accordance with present invention.”).
`
`
`
`In my opinion, the cited support for Flexiworld’s position that a
`
`POSITA would view an information plus an output device to be an “output
`
`system” as recited in the claims is weak. Rather, in my opinion, a POSITA would
`
`15
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`understand the recited “output system” in the context of the claims to refer to an
`
`output device and its associated output controller (to the extent it has one).
`
`D. Both of Flexiworld’s Arguments Ignore the “Client Device” /
`Discovery Limitations in Claims 1, 8, and 15.
` All of the ’903 claims recite that the output system (or output device)
`
`makes itself discoverable to a “client device” and receives content from a client
`
`device for output. Neither of Flexiworld’s arguments account for these limitations.
`
` For example, claim 1 includes the following limitations:
`
`Identifier
`1[p]
`1[q]
`
`1[r]
`
`Claim Element
`wherein the method further comprises:
`executing a wireless discovery operation, by the output system
`using the at least one chip or chipset of the output system, the
`execution of the wireless discovery operation is for a client
`device, which is in the same wireless local area network as the
`output system, to wirelessly discover, over the wireless local
`area network wirelessly coupled by the output system in (2),
`the output system for output service, the client device being a
`separate device from the output system and from the one or
`more servers; and
`wirelessly receiving, by the output system, using the at least
`one chip or chipset of the output system that is compatible, at
`least in part, with at least part of a protocol within IEEE
`802.11 wireless standards, from the client device that has
`wirelessly discovered the output system, and over the wireless
`local area network wirelessly coupled by the output system in
`(2), audio or video digital content that includes audio data or
`video data for playing at the output system or at the at least
`an output device.
`
`Ex. 1003 at 3 (emphasis added); see also id. at p. 8 (elements 8[n]-[p]), p. 13
`
`(elements 15[o]-[r]).
`
`16
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
` The ’903 patent exclusively describes output devices being discovered
`
`by, and receiving output data from client devices (i.e., information apparatuses).
`
`For example, the patent states:
`
`During output process 401, a user may need to select one
`or more output devices 106 for output service. An
`optional discovery process step 404 may be implemented
`to help the user select an output device 106. During the
`discovery process step 404, a user's information
`apparatus 100 may (1) search for available output devices
`106; (2) provide the user with a list of available output
`devices 106; and (3) provide means for the user to choose
`one or more output devices 106 to take the output job.
`’903 patent at 22:19-27 (emphasis added); see also id. at 23:46-25:22; Fig. 4 (step
`
`404: “DISCOVERY AND OUTPUT DEVICE SELECTION”).
`
` Nothing in the ’903 patent suggests that an information apparatus
`
`makes itself discoverable to, or receives content from other client devices (i.e.,
`
`information apparatuses). Any argument that an information apparatus doubling as
`
`an output device (i.e., Flexiworld’s second theory (see, e.g., POR at 11)) would
`
`also make itself discoverable to and output content for other information
`
`apparatuses is not supported by the written description. Moreover, it is one thing
`
`for a user to use his or her information apparatus to render content selected by the
`
`user, but it is another for a user to allow his or her information apparatus to be used
`
`as an output device by other users. Nothing in the written description would have
`
`conveyed to a POSITA that the invention possessed by the inventors extended to
`
`17
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`users making their information apparatuses available to be used as output devices
`
`by other users.
`
`
`
`In addition, in my opinion it would not have been clear to a POSITA
`
`from the written description how an “output system” consisting of both an
`
`information and an output device (i.e., Flexiworld’s first theory (see, e.g., POR at
`
`11)) would make itself discoverable for output service or receive output data from
`
`a client device. Would the client device have to discover both the information
`
`apparatus and the output device? Would the combination of “output system”
`
`devices be somehow discovered together? Why would a client device want to
`
`discover an information apparatus in addition to the output device or provide
`
`output data to that device instead of providing it directly to the output device?
`
`None of these questions are addressed or answered by the written description
`
`because it does not actually treat the combination of an information apparatus and
`
`output device as an “output system” as Flexiworld and Dr. Cooklev argue.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`The Written Description Does Not Disclose an Information
`Apparatus Doubling as an Output Controller.
`In addressing dependent claims 3, 14, and 18 which recite that the
`
`output system / device is an output controller for a TV, Flexiworld argues that a
`
`POSITA would have understood the written description to disclose that an
`
`information apparatus be used as the output controller. See POR at 27-28; Ex.
`
`18
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`2009 at ¶¶ 105-107. I disagree.
`
`
`
`I understand the written description requirement requires disclosure,
`
`either actual or inherent, of the claimed subject matter and that is not sufficient for
`
`the written description to merely render the claimed subject matter obvious.
`
`Neither Flexiworld nor Dr. Cooklev identify any actual or inherent disclosure of
`
`combining an information apparatus and output controller or using the same
`
`physical device as both information apparatus and output controller. There are no
`
`such disclosures in the written description. Rather than showing that this
`
`modification of the invention is actually or disclosed, Flexiworld and Dr. Cooklev
`
`appear to be arguing that it would have been obvious to a POSITA because it
`
`would have been apparent to a POSITA despite not being actually described which
`
`I understand is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement.
`
`Accordingly, Flexiworld’s argument fails to show that these claims are adequately
`
`supported by the written description in my opinion.
`
`III. THE SUBJECT MATTER-INELIGIBILITY GROUND
` Roku has asked me to address certain arguments Flexiworld and Dr.
`
`Cooklev make in connection with the subject matter-eligibility ground.
`
`A. The ’903 Patent Claims Are Not Directed to an Improvement in
`Technology.
` Flexiworld and Dr. Cooklev argue that the ’903 patent claims are
`
`directed to improvements in technology. POR at 63-68; Ex. 2009 at ¶¶ 133, 138,
`
`19
`
`ROKU 1009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D.
`
`140-141. I disagree.
`
` First, Flexiworld argues that the ’903 patent describes (indirectly via
`
`the ’257 patent) how an output controller can be used to avoid the need to pre-
`
`install device drivers for output devices. POR at 64-66. As an initial matter, most
`
`of the ’903 patent’s claims do not even require an output controller. Specifically,
`
`only dependent claims 3, 14, and 18 require an output controller. Ex. 1003.
`
` To suggest the ’903 patent claims incorporate an output controller that
`
`addresses the device driver problem, Flexiworld primarily points to the
`
`“processing” limitations in the independent claims. POR at 65. Nothing in the
`
`“processing” limitations requires an output controller that addresses the device
`
`driver issue, however. As I discussed in my prior declaration, the “processing”
`
`limitations are high-level and generic. See Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 147-156 (discussing the
`
`“processing” limitation in claim 1). While the ’257 patent suggests an output
`
`controller could be used to process “intermediate output data” into device-
`
`dependent output data,1 the ’903 claims do not require that type of processing to be
`
`performed.
`
`
`
`1 See, e.g., Ex. 2010 (’257 patent) at 18:15-20 (“The output controller
`230(5A) includes an interpreter 510A component for decoding the intermediate
`output data of the present invention; and a converter component 530A for
`converting one or more decoded output images into a printer-controller print data
`that is suitable for input to the printer
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
