Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
gov Paper 26
571-272-7822 Entered: May 8, 2017
v.
Case IPR2016-00174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
____________
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Unified Patents Inc. (Petitioner), filed a Petition (Paper 2, Pet.)
for inter partes review of claims 120 of U.S. Patent No. 8,090,862 B2 (the
862 patent) (Ex. 1001) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 311319. Nonend
Inventions N.V. (Patent Owner) filed a Patent Owner Preliminary
Response (Paper 7, Prelim. Resp.). On May 12, 2016, based on the record
before us at the time, we instituted an inter partes review of all challenged
claims (120) of the 862 patent. Paper 10 (Dec.). Specifically, we
instituted that review on the following challenges to the claims:
Claims
References Basis challenged
Shastri 1 102(e) 16 and 818
Dec. 26.
After we instituted this review, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
Response (Paper 14, PO Resp.) and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 17,
Pet. Reply). 4 Petitioner relies on the first Declaration of Dr. Charles
1
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0065922 A1; May 30, 2002.
Ex. 1002 (Shastri).
2
U.S. Patent No. 6,195,680 B1; Feb. 27, 2001. Ex. 1004 (Goldszmidt).
3
U.S. Patent No. 6,377,996 B1; Apr. 23, 2002. Ex. 1005 (Lumelsky).
4
Petitioner appears to have filed the Reply twice as Papers 17 and 18. As
those papers appear to be identical, we will refer to Paper 17 only.
2
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
Eldering (Ex. 1006) and the second Declaration of Dr. Eldering (Ex. 1018).5
Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Dr. John C. Hale (Ex. 2016).
Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 20) to which
Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 23).
We heard oral argument on February 8, 2017 (Oral Hearing). The
record contains a transcript of the hearing (Paper 25, Tr.).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 6. The evidentiary standard is
preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. 316(e); see also 37 C.F.R.
42.1(d). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
318(a) and 37 C.F.R. 42.73.
For the reasons expressed below, we conclude that Petitioner has met
its burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 120 are
unpatentable.
B. The 862 Patent
According to the 862 patent, [s]ystems and methods are disclosed
for streaming content over a network that enables communication between a
first consumer node, a second consumer node, and a production node.
Ex. 1001, Abstract. The method involves processing, for play-back, part of
an item of content received over a first connection, while another part of the
item of content is being received over a second communication channel. Id.
According to an embodiment, a first consumer node connects to a
production node and commences receipt of a stream. See id. at 7:2635. A
5
Petitioner appears to have filed the second Declaration of Dr. Eldering
twice as Exhibits 1012 and 1018. Petitioner also filed a document labelled
Transcript of March 11, 2016 Conference as Exhibit 1012. As Exhibits
1012 and 1018 appear to be identical, for the second Declaration of Dr.
Eldering, we will refer only to Exhibit 1018.
3
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
second consumer node connects with both the production node and the first
consumer node, tests whether the connection to the production node or to the
first consumer node is the best, and selects the best node from which to
receive the content. See id. at 7:4448.
Figure 2C of the 862 patent depicts such a configuration and is
reproduced below.
4
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
6
Paper 6 does not have page numbers. We treat the first page as page
number 1 and number the pages consecutively from there.
5
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
II. ANALYSIS
A. Real Parties in Interest
Petitioner certified that Unified Patents Inc. is the real party in
interest, and further certifies that no other party exercised control or could
exercise control over Unifieds participation in this proceeding, the filing of
this petition, or the conduct of any ensuing trial. Pet. 1. In support of this
assertion, Petitioner filed voluntary interrogatory responses, signed by its
counsel for Petitioner and verified by its CEO. Ex. 1007.
Patent Owners Preliminary Response contended that the Petition
should be denied for failure to name the real party in interest. Prelim. Resp.
6
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
413. Patent Owners Response, however, does not address this contention.
For this reason, we deem this argument waived. See Paper 11, 23 (The
patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in
the response will be deemed waived.); see also 37 C.F.R. 42.23(a) (Any
material fact not specifically denied may be considered admitted.).
B. Level of Ordinary Skill
Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art related to the
862 patent would have a Masters Degree in electrical engineering,
computer science, or a related subject or the equivalent, and would also have
at least three years of experience working with distributed computer
networks, or the equivalent. Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1006 18). Patent Owner
does not define the level of ordinary skill in the art. We find Petitioners
definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art is commensurate with the
level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected in the prior art. See Okajima v.
Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ([T]he absence of specific
findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error
where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for
testimony is not shown.) (internal quotations omitted); In re GPAC Inc., 57
F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
C. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, a claim in an unexpired patent shall be given
its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent
in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (affirming that USPTO has
statutory authority to construe claims according to 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b)).
Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are
7
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
8
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
7
We note harmless error in that Patent Owner incorrectly cites paragraph 12
of Exhibit 1006 in quoting Dr. Elderings testimony. The quoted material is
in paragraph 10 of that Exhibit.
9
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
10
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
11
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
forth below, our reading of the parties overall assertions is that the actual
dispute as being whether another part and the first part can be
substantively the same, e.g., continuing with our analogy, the first part
and the another part can be the song Happy Birthday and an identical
duplicate copy of the song Happy Birthday, respectively.
Petitioner argues [t]he term another part of the item of content
should be interpreted to mean any part of the item of content, whether the
same or different than any other part of the item of content. Pet. 1011;
Pet. Reply 34. Petitioner asserts:
For example, a second part of an item of content can be another
part if it is a partial copy of a first part of the item of content, if
it is a segment of the item of content that includes or excludes
segments contained within a first part of the item of content, or
if it is a replica of a first part of the item of content.
Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1018 5). Petitioner further asserts the 862 patent
Specification supports this interpretation by disclosing that a node specifies
the portion of the item of content it wishes to receive and does not disclose
or otherwise suggest that the requested part of the media stream could not be
a copy of a part that the node had already received. Id. at 5 (citing Ex.
1001, 9:4849, 13:2732; Ex. 1018 8).
Patent Owner argues another cannot mean the same part of the item
of content, as would be encompassed within Petitioners interpretation, but,
instead, must mean a different part of the item of content. PO Resp. 10
(citing a dictionary definition of the adjective another (Ex. 2017)). Patent
Owner further argues the 862 patent Specification supports its interpretation
that another part must be a different part of the item of content. Id. at 1011
(citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 2A2Q, 8:629:22, 9:5059, Figs. 6A6J, 11:42
12:45). Patent Owner further relies on Dr. Hales testimony that another
12
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
means a different piece of content, not the same piece of content. Id. at 11
(citing Ex. 2016 79). Based on a definition of another set forth in an
online dictionary (http://merriam-webster.com), Dr. Hale testifies another
part of the item of the content must refer to a different or distinct collection
of data identified by a different or distinct location in the object or file. Ex.
2016 9.
We find no limiting definition or special meaning of another in the
862 patent Specification. As noted by Petitioner, the phrase another part
of the item of content (or simply another part) appears only in the
Abstract and independent claims 1, 12, and 18 of the 862 patent. Pet.
Reply. 4. 8 We find Patent Owners reliance on Figures 2A2Q and related
text at column 8, line 62 through column 9, line 22 and column 9, lines 50
through 59, of the 862 patent, immaterial to interpreting another. These
figures and related text describe communications among nodes to identify a
best (fastest) connection therebetween, and refer only generally to sending
content over such an identified higher speed connectioni.e., nothing in
these cited portions identifies which parts of content are sent over which
connections.
Figures 6A6J, and related text at column 11, line 42 through column
12, line 45, of the 862 patent are more helpful in interpreting another,
although they do not support Patent Owners arguments. These portions of
8
Petitioner correctly notes the Abstract of the 862 patent was added by
amendment just prior to allowance of the patent. Pet. Reply 4. This
amendment essentially mirrors the language of claim 1. Thus, the
Specification of the 862 patent provides little or no context for interpreting
another in the claim recitation referring to another part of the item of
content.
13
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
the 862 patent Specification describe how exemplary data packages (data
packages 1 through 8) are distributed to nodes via the fastest connection
among multiple possible connection paths. As described in the related text,
a node may request a data package from a first node, but after realizing the
connection to another node is faster, the node may establish the faster
connection and request that same data package from the faster node. For
example, referring to Figure 6D, the 862 patent Specification describes
node 122 receiving a request for a data package from node 126. Ex. 1001,
11:51. Referring next to Figure 6E, the Specification discloses:
As the connection via node 122 of consumer node 126
appeared to be slow, consumer node 126 goes looking for a better
connection and finally ends up at consumer node 129. At the
request of consumer node 126, consumer node 129 now also
starts delivering data packages to 126. . . . Consumer node 126
then disconnects the connection to consumer node 122.
Id. at 12:18 (emphasis added). By use of the word also, we find the
Specification discloses each of nodes 122 and 129 simultaneously and
independently sending identical copies of requested data packages to
requesting node 126. In the above example, we find that node 122 is
transmitting the requested data package to node 126 while node 129 begins a
faster transmission of an identical copy of the requested data package to
node 126. Thus, Patent Owners reliance on this disclosure of the 862
patent appears misplaced. Contrary to Patent Owners assertion, this portion
of the Specification supports Petitioners broader interpretation of another
that encompasses the same data packagei.e., another copy (another
transmission) of the same requested data package.
Patent Owners citation to a dictionary defining the adjective
another as different or distinct (PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2017); Ex. 2016
14
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
9
We observe the copyright date on the dictionary filed by Petitioner (Ex.
1017, 2 (1997)) pre-dates the copyright date on the dictionary filed by Patent
Owner (Ex. 2017, 2 (2004)) and, more importantly, pre-dates the priority
date of the 862 patent (2001).
15
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
10
The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms does not have a
definition of logical connection, however, it defines logical channel as
[o]ne connection over a single physical communication link. There may be
multiple logical channels over a single physical communication link. The
Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms 636 (7th ed. 2000) (Ex.
3002).
11
Petitioner notes Patent Owner had agreed to a narrower interpretation in a
related litigation in which a channel is tied to a physical, transmission
communication medium, but urges our interpretation in this case should not
be so limited. Pet. 8, n.4 (citing Ex. 1011, 1416).
16
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
17
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
on all issues relating to the status of [the asserted reference] as prior art).
Petitioner has the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability by a
preponderance of the evidence. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Natl
Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner also has the
initial burden of production to show that a reference is prior art to certain
claims under a relevant section of 35 U.S.C. 102. Id. Once Petitioner has
met that initial burden, the burden of production shifts to Patent Owner to
argue or produce evidence that the asserted reference is not prior art to
certain claims, for example, because those claims are entitled to the benefit
of priority of an earlier-filed application. Id. at 1380. Once Patent Owner
has met that burden of production, the burden is on Petitioner to show that
the claims at issue are not entitled to the benefit of priority of the earlier filed
application. Id.
Here, Petitioner relies on Shastri as an anticipatory prior art reference
under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). On its face, Shastri shows a publication date of
May 30, 2002 and a filing date of November 30, 2000. Ex. 1002, 1. The
862 patent shows a filing date of June 9, 2010, but claims priority through a
foreign patent application (in the Netherlands) back to Feb. 16, 2001. Ex.
1001, 1. Thus, based on the dates on the face of the two patents, we find that
Petitioner has sufficiently met its initial burden of production showing that
Shastri is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). Therefore, Patent Owner then
bears the burden of producing evidence antedating Shastris filing date
(November 30, 2000). Mahurkar, 79 F.3d at 157677. We find that Patent
Owner has met that burden by producing the Declarations of the inventors of
the 862 patent (Exs. 2018, 2019) and corroborating evidence (Exs. 2020
2027, 2029) that allegedly show conception prior to Shastri, and reasonable
18
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
19
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
20
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
Mr. Van Oldeborghs Declaration does not identify any specific evidence
showing details of the claimed invention, but, instead, merely states broadly
and conclusorily that the inventors conceived of the invention prior to
Shastri (Ex. 2018 2, 3) and lists various Exhibits as supporting that
assertion (id. 4, 6), but, again, with little to no analysis of these Exhibits
as compared to the claimed invention. Mr. Gnirreps Declaration (Ex. 2019)
is substantively identical to that of Mr. Van Oldeborgh.
The one possible exception to the general lack of analysis concerning
the claimed invention is the inventors assertions that Exhibit 2029 shows
some details of the claims in drawings depicting exemplary data transfers
between nodes:
For example, the third figure on the second page of the fax shows
a media player (C3) receiving part of an item of content (D3) on
a first communication channel, and another part of an item of
content (D4) on a second communication channel, and doing so
at the same time so that the receipt of D4 overlaps with the
processing of D3 received from the first communication channel.
Ex. 2018 6; Ex. 2019 6. The referenced third figure of the second page
of Exhibit 2029 is reproduced below.
21
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
22
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
23
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
24
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
25
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
26
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
27
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
new server may begin streaming at the point left off at the original server
without interruption. Id.
Shastris Figure 4, reproduced below, broadly describes a method of
Shastris invention.
28
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
6162. While streaming content from the first server, method steps 71
75 check for alternate servers that can better serve the content (i.e., better
QoS). Id. 6263. If a better server is found, steps 77 and 79 connect the
user computer to the alternate server, and the alternate server continues
serving the media stream. Id. 6364.
3. Anticipation by Shastri (Claims 16 and 818)
Regarding independent claim 1, Petitioner maps the preamble and first
three steps of claim 1 to teachings of Shastri. Pet. 1318. Patent Owner
does not challenge these mappings. We note, in particular, Petitioners
mapping of the second step (initiating a second connection with a second
computer) and mapping the third step (receiving part of the content over the
second connection) to teachings in Shastris paragraph 48. Pet. 1718.
Specifically, Shastris paragraph 48 discloses [p]eriodically, separate
connections are opened with alternate servers for the purpose of obtaining a
sampling of QoS data by very briefly accepting the same media content from
the second test server. As will be explained in further detail below, we
agree with Petitioner, and find that Shastri discloses initiating a second
connection (separate connections are opened with alternate servers) and
receiving some part of the desired content over the second connection
(sampling QoS data by very briefly accepting the same media content from
the second test server).
The final step of claim 1 recites,
making incoming content received over the first communication
channel ready for processing and play-back at the
receiving media player, such that part of the item of
content is streamed to a stream target at the receiving
media player, while another part of the item of content is
29
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
30
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
12
We note that even if Shastri did disclose sampling the same data, that
would still meet our construction of another set forth above.
31
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
measurement of the channel does not necessarily involve receiving the data.
PO Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 2016 2021). Patent Owner contends Shastri
does not require receiving the actual content in its sampling of QoS, but
could simply count the rate at which frame headers that are addressed to the
receiving device without receiving any of the actual content contained in the
frames. Id. Petitioner disagrees, arguing Shastri makes clear that the media
content, per se, is sampled to determine QoS. Pet. Reply 1416.
We agree with Petitioner that Shastri makes clear that QoS
determinations include, inter alia, a media player sampling media content
from a server. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 32 (Quality of Service (QoS) statistics,
which may be determined in part by playback statistics), 40 (Certain
QoS statistics relating to current server performance are determined during
playback by individual components contained in player P and passed to
module 39 as part of normal function.), 62 (Step 71 includes establishing
a connection with the alternate server and the initiation of streaming of the
same file being provided by the original server of step 65.). Thus, we find
that Shastris sampling receives a part of media content from a server, and
evaluates QoS from the act of sampling that part, as opposed to the other
measurements asserted by Patent Owner. We find also that the part of the
media content being sampled would have been understood by the ordinarily
skilled artisan to be another part, as recited in claim 1, for the reasons set
forth above.
For the above reasons, we are persuaded Petitioner has established, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 1 is anticipated by Shastri.
Independent claims 12 and 18 recite limitations similar to independent
claim 1. Petitioner similarly maps disclosures of Shastri to recitations of
32
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
33
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
Figure 1a (above) shows client 1.8 coupled through control server 1.1 to
clusters 1.5 and 1.6 of servers 1.2 and 1.3 for multimedia delivery. Ex.
1004, 4:2733. Goldszmidt discloses [t]he control server 1.1 redirects
incoming client agent 1.8 requests to the streaming servers (1.2, 1.3),
preferably while monitoring the workload of the streaming server. Id. at
5:3234. An initial (first) connection is established with a primary server to
stream requested content. See id. at 8:3463, Figs. 2A2C. After the initial
connection begins streaming data (see id. Fig. 4), the client may detect a
fault in the stream delivery and request the control server to switch the
connection to an alternate server.
Fig. 5 of Goldszmidt, reproduced below, describes the process of
requesting a switch to an alternate server.
34
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
35
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
36
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
(link 3.12 of Goldszmidts Fig. 3C). Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 3B, 3C,
9:1522). As will be explained in further detail below, we find that
Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence the initiating
step is disclosed by Goldszmidt.
The initiating step recites, initiating a request for at least a part of the
item of content over a second communication channel operationally coupled
to the receiving media player. Patent Owner argues this step requires that
the request must be transmitted over the second communication channel
the same channel over which another part of the content will be received.
PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner further argues Goldszmidt fails to teach a
request that is transmitted over the second communication, but, instead,
transmits its request over a communication channel coupling the client to the
control servernot the channel over which the requested data will be
received. Id.
Petitioner disagrees, arguing Patent Owner mis-reads the claim
limitation as requiring the request be sent over the second communication
channel. Pet. Reply 17. Petitioner further argues the ordinarily skilled
artisan would understand the step of initiating a request as merely taking
actions that, eventually, result in a request, rather than actual steps requiring
a request be sent or sent over a particular communication channel. Id. at 18.
Petitioner contends the entirety of the phrase for at least a part of the item
of content over a second communication channel modifies request,
indicating the type of request that is being initiated, rather than requiring the
request be sent over the second channel. Id.
37
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
We agree with Petitioner that the initiating step does not require a
request be sent over the second communication channel. 13 Initiating does
not appear in the Specification of the 862 patent in reference to a request.
The Abstract of the 862 patent does refer to initiating, from the first
consumer node, a first connection to the second consumer node and
initiating, from the first consumer node, a second connection over the
network to a production node. Ex. 1001, 1. That disclosure, however, does
not provide us with any pertinent guidance. Otherwise, we find no
discussion of initiating a request, or any specific requirements regarding
which communication channel must be used to transmit such an initiated
request.
Indeed, Patent Owner concedes as much by not identifying any
disclosure in the 862 patent that requires the request be transmitted over any
particular communication channel. Instead, Patent Owner relies on
paragraphs 26 and 27 of Dr. Hales Declaration in support of its
interpretation of the initiating step (PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 2016)), but Dr.
Hale also does not point to any support in the 862 patent Specification in
support of his interpretation of the initiating step. 14
13
Indeed, by its own terms, it is unclear that the initiating step itself even
requires that the request be sent at allit appears to only require initiation
of the sending, as opposed to completion of the sending, of the request.
14
Dr. Hale testifies: In addition, the 862 patent teaches that receiving
systems (Consumer Nodes) can also act as content servers (Production
Nodes), yielding a dynamic and resilient organic network topology (see
[862 col 2, 9-20] and [862 col 6, 27-30]. Ex. 2016 26. We fail to see
the significance of this citation to the 862 patent in relation to interpreting
the initiating step.
38
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
At the Oral Hearing, counsel for Patent Owner contends the sequence
of Figures 2A2Q in the 862 patent disclose the request being transmitted
over the second linkthe same link on which the requested data is returned.
See Tr. 64:22658. Counsel for Patent Owner remarked, I think what the
dispute boils down to is a matter of claim language, not a matter of trying to
import something into the claim is what is that over the first communications
channel modifying. Id. at 67:69. Counsel for Patent Owner identified
column 9, lines 13 through 22 as implying its interpretation of the initiating
step as requiring the request be sent over the second communication
channel. The cited portion states:
In FIG. 2E consumer node 3 is testing, for instance
because its connections are not optimal, the connection to various
nodes in the network of which it now (directly or indirectly)
knows of its existence. This testing may for instance take place
because the connection to consumer node 2 gets worse and
worse. On this case consumer node 3 tests the connection to
production node 1 and consumer node 2. It appears that
consumer node 2 still has capacity to spare. Consumer node 2
now also starts to send content to consumer node 3. (FIG. 2F).
39
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
of the same content received over the second connection. Petitioner argues
this recitation is taught because, Goldszmidt discloses that the switch
between servers is transparent to the client, and that the client continues to
receive the multimedia content in an uninterrupted fashion during the
switch. Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:3035, 3:1221). Petitioner further
argues an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that the play-back is
uninterrupted during the switch because packets of the multimedia stream
have already been buffered by the client and continue to be rendered while
the switch takes place. Id. (citing Ex. 1006 165, 168; Ex. 1004, 12:20
27, 12:5813:5, 13:6414:19). As will be explained in further detail below,
we find that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence
the simultaneity requirement is disclosed by Goldszmidt.
Admittedly, Goldszmidt does not expressly teach the use of buffering
for the purpose of overlapping processing content received over a first
channel, while receiving content over a second channel (the simultaneity
requirement). Goldszmidt discloses the use of buffering helps assure
uninterrupted play-back based on the speed of the communication link to
serve the content. See Ex. 1004, 12:24 (in order to maintain continuous
playback); see also id. at 14:2426 (the clip is buffered sufficient for the
clip to play to completion smoothly once rendering is started). In our
Decision on Institution, we determined:
We are persuaded that congestion or insufficient bandwidth, for
example, in a first connection with a primary server, would have
suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan a need to switch to an
alternate server. We are further persuaded that Goldszmidt
would have suggested data received from a first connection that
is pre-loaded (e.g., already buffered when congestion is sensed)
40
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
Dec. 22.
Patent Owner argues, the mere fact that buffering may be useful
generally in processing data says nothing about its suitability for use in the
context of switching between media streams. PO Resp. 20. Patent Owner
further argues, even if buffering is used, it is not necessarily the case that
there will be overlap in processing content received over the first channel
while receiving content over the second channel, as required by the claims
(the simultaneity requirement). Id. (citing Ex. 2016 2830). Dr. Hale
argues Goldszmidts buffering is solely designed to compensate for the rate
limitations of the first (and only) connection and that buffering in
Goldszmidt is not presented to account for delays in switching to a second
connection. Ex. 2016 29. Dr. Hale contends a serial solution would be
simpler, in which buffered content received from a first server connection, as
in Goldszmidt, would be fully processed (buffer emptied) before content
from an alternate server is received, thus, providing continuity of play-back
without the overlapped processing required by the claimed invention. Id.
14.
Petitioner disagrees, arguing it is an express teaching of Goldszmidt to
switch between servers such that play-back is uninterrupted, and to keep the
buffer filled to assure uninterrupted (continuous) play-back of the content.
Pet. Reply, 1920 (citing Ex. 1018 29). Therefore, Petitioner contends the
ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that, by keeping media
content in the buffer and playing the media content out of the buffer when
41
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
42
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
43
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
44
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
45
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
III. ORDERS
After due consideration of the record before us, and for the foregoing
reasons, it is:
ORDERED that claims 120 of the 862 patent are held unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owners Motion to Exclude is
dismissed; and
FURTHER ORDERED that because this is a final written decision,
parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. 90.2.
46
IPR201600174
Patent 8,090,862 B2
PETITIONER:
David L. Cavanaugh
Michael Van Handel
Daniel V. Williams
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE and DORR LLP
david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
michael.vanhandel@wilmerhale.com
Daniel.williams@wilmerhale.com
Jonathan Stroud
jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
PATENT OWNER:
Matthew J. Antonelli
ANTONELLI, HARRINGTON
& THOMPSON LLP
matt@ahtlawfirm.com
47