Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 1 of 89
`Case 1:14-cv-02396—PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 1 of 89
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 2 of 89
`
`
`
`Filed on Behalf of NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`By: Charles R. Macedo (Reg. No. 32,781)
`Brian A. Comack (Reg. No. 45,343)
`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`Telephone: (212) 336–8074
`Facsimile: (212) 336–8001
`cmacedo@arelaw.com
`N1-Google-CBM@arelaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`Case CBM2015-00113
`Patent 8,904,464
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.220
`
`
`
`620547.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 3 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`I.  
`
`B. 
`C. 
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Petitioner’s 103 Grounds fail because Petitioner’s proposed combinations
`are missing key elements of each independent claim. ..................................... 3 
`Claim elements 1.B/18.C, 1.C/18.D, and 1.D/18.A—“electronic
`A. 
`media work identifier.” .......................................................................... 6 
`The broadest reasonable construction of “identifier,” in the
`1. 
`context of the phrase “electronic media work identifier” and the
`‘464 Patent, is a name or label that identifies something, in this
`case the “electronic media work.” .............................................. 7 
`2.   The samples disclosed in Ferris are not “electronic media work
`identifiers.” ................................................................................ 13 
`Claim elements 1.C/18.D—“storing … correlation information.” ..... 16 
`Claim elements 1.F/18.F—“providing from the computer system to a
`user electronic device, the first electronic media work…” ................. 17 
`Reason 1: The “computer system” that provides the PADUID
`1. 
`does not provide an “electronic media work” to anything at the
`User’s Home 416, much less the “user electronic device.” ...... 19 
`Reason 2: the Broadcasters 402 do not provide an “electronic
`media work” to the remote control device 417. ........................ 24 
`Board’s concerns. ...................................................................... 26 
`3.  
`Claim elements 1.H/18.H and 1.I/18.I—“machine-readable
`instructions.” ....................................................................................... 30 
`“Machine-readable instructions” means code or pseudocode
`1. 
`that is executed using a computer processor, not a message to
`be read and followed by a human. ............................................ 32 
`2.   Petitioner does not identify “machine-readable instructions” in
`Ferris that are generated by a computer system and provided to
`a user electronic device. ............................................................ 40 
`Dependent claims. ............................................................................... 49 
`i
`
`2. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`620547.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 4 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`II.   Obvious combinations. .................................................................................. 50 
`A.   Combining Ferris and Lambert. .......................................................... 51 
`B.   Combining Ferris and Gionis. ............................................................. 61 
`Reason 1: Replacing the sliding-window algorithm of Ferris
`1. 
`with the Gionis algorithm will result in a system that produces
`unacceptable errors. .................................................................. 62 
`Reason 2: Replacing the algorithm disclosed in Ferris
`algorithm with the Gionis algorithm will result in a less
`efficient—not more efficient—system. .................................... 67 
`Board Concerns. ........................................................................ 69 
`3.  
`III.   Petitioner cannot supplement its analysis and evidence. ............................... 73 
`IV.   Conclusion. .................................................................................................... 78 
`
`
`
`2. 
`
`620547.1
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 5 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases 
`Alberts v. Kappos,
`917 F.Supp.2d 94 (D.D.C. 2013) ......................................................................... 59
`Apple Inc. v. Cellular Communications Equipment, LLC,
`IPR2015-00576 (June 12, 2015) .......................................................................... 60
`Avaya Inc. v. Network-1,
`IPR2013-00071 (May 22, 2014) .......................................................................... 76
`Biodelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. RB Pharmaceuticals Limited,
`IPR2014-00325 (July 29, 2014) .................................................................... 48, 53
`CallCopy, Inc. v. Verint Americas, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00492 (Feb. 5, 2014) ............................................................................. 49
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................................. 4
`Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc.,
`596 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ....................................................................... 9, 39
`Denso Corporation v. Netlatch, LLC,
`IPR2015-00473 (July 15, 2015) ........................................................................... 70
`Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. v. Pozen Inc.,
`IPR2015-00802 (October 9, 2015) ....................................................................... 53
`Eizo Corporation v. Barco N.V.,
`IPR2014-00358 (July 14, 2015) ........................................................................... 74
`Electro-Nucleonics, Inc. v. Mossinghoff,
`592 F.Supp. 608 (D.C.D.C. 1984) ........................................................................ 58
`EMC Corp. v. Clouding Corp.,
`IPR2014-01309 (February 4, 2015) ..................................................................... 62
`Esselte Corporation, Esselte AB, and Esselte Leitz GmbH & Co. KG v. Sanford
`L.P.,
`IPR2015-00771 (August 28, 2015) ........................................................................ 8
`Global Tel*Link Corp. v. Securus Technologies, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00785 (October 7, 2015) ......................................................................... 4
`
`620547.1
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 6 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Google Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd. v. Micrografx, LLC,
`IPR2014-00533 (June 17, 2015) ..................................................................... 9, 39
`Greene’s Energy Group, LLC v. Oil States Energy Services, LLC,
`IPR2014-00364 (May 1, 2015) ............................................................................ 77
`Heart Failure Technologies, LLC v. Cardiokinetix, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00183 (July 31, 2013) ........................................................................... 72
`In re Bond,
`910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ....................................................................... 11, 47
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .............................................................................. 60
`In re Gurley,
`27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ................................................................................ 53
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 53
`In re Ratti,
`46 C.C.P.A. 976, 270 F.2d 810, (CCPA 1959) .................................................... 60
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................... 11, 47, 48
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge LTD,
`IPR2013-00517 (Feb. 11, 2015) ........................................................................... 75
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398, (2007) ............................................................................... 53, 70, 71
`LG Display Co., LTD. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC,
`IPR2014-01357 (February 26, 2015) ................................................................... 71
`MasterImage 3D, Inc. and MasterImage 3D Asia, LLC v. Reald Inc.,
`IPR2015-00036 (April 22, 2015) ......................................................................... 60
`Nano-Second Technology Co., Ltd. v. Dynaflex Intern.,
`944 F.Supp.2d 855 (C.D. Cal. 2013) .................................................................... 58
`Neulion, Inc. v. Filippo Costanzo, Saverio Roncolini, and Antonio Rossi,
`IPR2014-00526 (September 3, 2014) ................................................................... 71
`Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
`No. 2014-1447, 2015 WL 328222 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 27, 2015) ............................... 60
`
`620547.1
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 7 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. ESS Technology, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01232 (December 2, 2015) ................................................................... 38
`Shaw Industries Group, Inc., v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00584 (July 24, 2014) ........................................................................... 77
`Smart Modular Technologies Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01373 (March 13, 2015) ......................................................................... 4
`Starhome GMBH v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`743 F.3d 849 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 9, 39
`Toyota Motor Corporation v. American Vehicular Sciences LLC,
`IPR2013-00419 (January 12, 2015) ..................................................................... 77
`TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.,
`IPR2014-00266 (June 25, 2015) ..................................................................... 9, 39
`TRW Automotive v. Magna Electronics,
`IPR2014-00262 (June 25, 2015) .......................................................................... 78
`Wright Medical Technology, Inc. v. The University of North Carolina,
`IPR2014-00626 (November 12, 2014) .................................................... 11, 47, 49
`Zelinski v. Brunswick Corp.,
`185 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 33
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00137 (July 1, 2014) ............................................................................. 15
`Statutes 
`35 U.S.C. § 326 ........................................................................................................ 62
`Regulations 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ............................................................................................ 10, 47
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 ........................................................................................ 75, 76, 77
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .............................................................................................. 2, 49
`
`
`
`620547.1
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 8 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`
`Updated Exhibit List
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary 5th ed. (2002) (tag)
`
`The New Oxford American Dictionary (2001) at 1727 (tag)
`
`Exhibit 2003
`
`Exhibit 2005
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`The New Oxford American Dictionary 3rd ed. (2010) at 1767
`(tag)
`
`Exhibit 2004 Quizlet – Facebook Terms (tag)
`https://quizlet.com/76248870/facebook-terms-aa-flash-cards/.
`
`Declaration of Greg Dovel in Support of Motion for Pro Hac
`Vice Admission
`
`Declaration of expert Dr. George Karypis, December 23, 2015
`
`Deposition Transcript of Pierre Moulin (Petitioner’s Declarant)
`December 7, 2015
`
`“electronic media work identifier”
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`Exhibit 2010
`
`Random House Webster’s, Computer & Internet Dictionary, 3rd
`ed. (1999)
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th ed. (1999) at 228
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th ed. (2002) at 264
`
`Exhibit 2011 Wikipedia, November 2003, “Identifier” 
`https://web.archive.org/web/20040111093522/http://en.wikipedia
`.org/wiki/Identifier 
`
`620547.1
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 9 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Exhibit 2012 Wikipedia, April 2005, “Identifier”
`https://web.archive.org/web/20050406004314/http://en.wikipedia
`.org/wiki/Identifier
`
`“machine-readable instructions”
`
`Exhibit 2013
`
`U.S. Patent 6,339,810 (excerpts)
`
`U.S. Patent 6,711,617 (excerpts)
`
`U.S. Patent 6,785,275 (excerpts)
`
`U.S. Patent 6,757,294 (excerpts)
`
`U.S. Patent 6,868,507 (excerpts)
`
`U.S. Patent 7,194,754 (excerpts)
`
`U.S. 20090242620 A1 (excerpts)
`
`U.S. Patent 8,844,800 (excerpts)
`
`U.S. Patent 8,280,456 (excerpts)
`
`U.S. 20110087920 A1 (excerpts)
`
`U.S. 20110087870 A1 (excerpts)
`
`U.S. Patent 8,384,726 (excerpts)
`
`U.S. Patent 8,386,955 (excerpts)
`
`U.S. Patent 8,411,112 (excerpts)
`
`U.S. 20150199228 A1 (excerpts)
`
`U.S. 20150206480 A1 (excerpts)
`
`
`ii
`
`Exhibit 2014
`
`Exhibit 2015
`
`Exhibit 2016
`
`Exhibit 2017
`
`Exhibit 2018
`
`Exhibit 2019
`
`Exhibit 2020
`
`Exhibit 2021
`
`Exhibit 2022
`
`Exhibit 2023
`
`Exhibit 2024
`
`Exhibit 2025
`
`Exhibit 2026
`
`Exhibit 2027
`
`Exhibit 2028
`
`620547.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 10 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`U.S. Patent 9,191,277 (excerpts)
`
`Computer Desktop Encyclopedia, 9th ed. (2001) at 470
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th ed. (2002) at 276
`
`Exhibit 2029
`
`Exhibit 2030
`
`Exhibit 2031
`
`Exhibit 2032
`
`The Penguin Concise Dictionary of Computing (2003) at 221
`
`“electronic media work identifier” (continued)
`
`Exhibit
`2033
`Exhibit
`2034
`
`Modern Dictionary of Electronics, 7th ed. (1999) at 359
`
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms, 6th
`ed. (1996) at 499
`
`
`620547.1
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 11 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Network-1 responds to the Decision to Institute a Covered Business Method
`
`Review of the ‘464 Patent. CBM2015-00113, Paper 7 (“Decision”).
`
`Network-1 appreciates the guidance and concerns that the Board provided
`
`and raised in the Decision. In this Response, Network-1 presents new arguments
`
`and evidence and also addresses the Board’s specific concerns. In doing so,
`
`Network-1 provides a detailed technical analysis in the accompanying Declaration
`
`of expert Dr. George Karypis (Ex. 2006) (“Karypis Decl.”) that it was not
`
`permitted to submit along with its prior filing. In addition, Network-1 quotes
`
`dozens of admissions from the deposition of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Moulin (Ex.
`
`2007) (“Moulin Depo.”), to corroborate most arguments made in this Response.
`
`
`
`The Board instituted this CBM on the following prior art grounds:
`
`
`Decision, 26.1 As demonstrated below, Petitioner’s attempt to demonstrate that the
`
`asserted art discloses all elements of the challenged claims is a classic attempt to
`
`
`1
`Petitioner’s primary reference—Ferris—was considered by the Examiner in
`
`a Quick Path Information Disclosure (QPID) submission in the underlying ‘464
`
`application. Ex. 1002 (Prosecution History) at 772, 699 (cover page of Ferris).
`
`620547.1
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 12 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`pound a square peg into a round hole, requiring Petitioner to take claim
`
`construction positions that are unreasonable.
`
`The controlling regulation required Petitioner to “identify … [h]ow the
`
`challenged claim is to be construed … [and] [h]ow the construed claim is
`
`unpatentable.” 37 CFR §42.104(b)(3)-(4). Petitioner did not provide constructions
`
`for all but one term. Pet. 15-17. Doing so would have demonstrated that the
`
`effective constructions that Petitioner must apply to attempt to demonstrate that the
`
`asserted art discloses all claim elements are unreasonable. For example, for the
`
`following terms, to support its arguments, Petitioner would need to adopt
`
`constructions that result in the following:
`
` “electronic media work:” a street performer who sings a song provides an
`
`“electronic media work” as long as the singer previously listened to the song
`
`on the radio and sings the song well (see Moulin Depo. 68:9:70:1);
`
` “machine readable instructions,” in the context of computer systems, are not
`
`limited to instructions to be executed by a computer processor but instead
`
`can be a message for a person to read (see Moulin Decl. ¶72, fn. 6);
`
` “identifier:” an “identifier” of something can be the something itself; e.g.,
`
`for a person, him or herself is his or her own identifier rather than the
`
`person’s name or identification, such as a social security number (see
`
`Moulin Depo. 19:20-24; 21:1-6).
`
`620547.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 13 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`As demonstrated below, under any reasonable constructions in light of the ‘464
`
`specification, the Petition fails on each challenged independent claim (claims 1 and
`
`18) and thus fails on all challenged dependent claims—claims 2-17 and 19-34.
`
`This Response is organized as follows:
`
` Section I demonstrates how the proposed combination—Ferris (Ex. 1006)
`
`with Lambert (Ex. 1007) and Gionis (Ex. 1008)—does not disclose most
`
`steps of independent claims 1 and 18 and certain dependent claim elements.
`
` Section II demonstrates that, in addition to not resulting in the claimed
`
`invention, the proposed combination of Ferris with Lambert and Gionis fails
`
`because (a) the art taught away from combining the references; (b)
`
`combining the references would result in a less efficient and more error-
`
`prone system; and (c) Petitioner’s motivations to combine the references are
`
`based on flawed premises that don’t make sense.
`
` Section III demonstrates why Petitioner cannot cure the Petition’s defects in
`
`its Reply.
`
`
`
`I. Petitioner’s 103 Grounds fail because Petitioner’s proposed
`combinations are missing key elements of each independent claim.
`
`If a combination of two (or more) references fails to teach an important
`
`claimed element, it is not possible for that combination to render the claim
`
`obvious. That is, assuming one of ordinary skill would have thought to combine
`
`620547.1
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 14 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`prior art references, those references would still be missing an important element
`
`and therefore, even with the combination, one of ordinary skill would still not
`
`possess the invention. See Global Tel*Link Corp. v. Securus Technologies, Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-00785, Paper 41 at 6-7 (October 7, 2015) (“To establish obviousness of a
`
`claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the
`
`prior art.”) (citing CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2003)); Smart Modular Technologies Inc. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2014-01373,
`
`Paper 16 at 14 (March 13, 2015) (“the combination … fails to teach or suggest all
`
`of the elements of independent claims 1, 20, and 29.”)
`
`Here, the proposed combination of Ferris with Lambert and Gionis is
`
`missing at least the following elements from each independent claim:
`
`
`
`
`
`620547.1
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 15 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
` claim 1: elements B, C, D, F, H, and I:
`
` claim 18: elements A, C, D, F, H, and I:
`
`620547.1
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 16 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Karypis Decl. ¶¶37-137.
`
`This Response addresses the missing claim elements in the following groups
`
`in the order that they appear in claim 1:
`
`A) “electronic media work identifier” elements 1.B/18.C, 1.C/18.D, and
`
`1.D/18.A;
`
`B) “storing…correlation information” elements 1.C/18.D;
`
`C) “providing…electronic media work” elements 1.F/18.F;
`
`D) “machine readable instructions” elements 1.H/18.H and 1.I/18.I; and
`
`E) dependent claim elements.
`
`A. Claim elements 1.B/18.C, 1.C/18.D, and 1.D/18.A—“electronic
`media work identifier.”
`
`
`
`Claim elements 1.B/18.C, 1.C/18.D, and 1.D/18.A all include the phrase
`
`“electronic media work identifier,” e.g.:
`
`
`Petitioner exclusively relies on the “samples” in Ferris—the records in a
`
`
`
`database to be compared to the works being broadcast by Broadcasters 402—as the
`
`claimed “electronic media work identifier”:
`
`620547.1
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 17 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Pet. 36-38; Moulin Decl. ¶72, 1.B. Petitioner’s analysis fails because the samples
`
`are not “electronic media work identifiers.” Karypis Decl. ¶¶45-60.
`
`
`
`Petitioner did not provide any construction for the phrase “electronic media
`
`work identifier” or the word “identifier.” Pet. 15-17;
`
`
`Moulin Depo. 9:8-12. Under any reasonable construction of “identifier,” as the
`
`term is used in the context of the phrase “electronic media work identifier” and the
`
`‘464 Patent, the samples (records in a database) identified by Petitioner are not
`
`“electronic media work identifiers.” Karypis Decl. ¶¶¶45-60.
`
`1.
`
`The broadest reasonable construction of “identifier,” in the
`context of the phrase “electronic media work identifier” and
`the ‘464 Patent, is a name or label that identifies something,
`in this case the “electronic media work.”
`
`Petitioner’s Declarant confirmed that “identifier,” in the context of the ‘464
`
`620547.1
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 18 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Patent, has its ordinary meaning in the field:
`
`Moulin Depo. 9:1-7; Karypis Decl. ¶45.
`
`
`
`The ordinary meaning of “identifier” in the context (field) of the ‘464 Patent,
`
`as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is a name or label used
`
`to identify. Karypis Decl. ¶46.2
`
`[a] Dictionary definitions and [b] a specification can support the ordinary
`
`meaning of a phrase: “In support of its construction, Petitioner [a] provides
`
`dictionary definitions and [b] identifies portions of the Specification showing
`
`sufficiently a usage of the term that is consistent with the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning ascertained from the dictionary definitions.” Esselte Corporation, Esselte
`
`AB, and Esselte Leitz GmbH & Co. KG v. Sanford L.P., IPR2015-00771, Paper 13
`
`at 7-8 (August 28, 2015).3 Here, [a] dictionary definitions and [b] the ‘464
`
`
`2
`This ordinary meaning has not changed between the filing date of the ‘464
`
`application (2000 / 2001) and the present. Karypis Decl. ¶46.
`
`3
`
`620547.1
`
`Emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 19 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`specification confirm that the ordinary meaning of “identifier” is a name or label
`
`used to identify. Each is addressed in turn.
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Dictionary definitions.
`
`The ordinary meaning of “identifier” as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art—a name or label used to identify—is confirmed by
`
`dictionary definitions, including dictionaries that are contemporaneous with the
`
`filing date of the ‘464 Patent in the 2000 / 2001 timeframe.
`
`In determining the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term,
`the Board may consult a general dictionary definition of the word for
`guidance. Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed.
`Cir. 2010).
`
`TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc., IPR2014-00266, Paper 39 at
`
`8 (June 25, 2015);
`
`We, therefore, look to the dictionary definitions provided by Patent
`Owner. The dictionary definitions of ‘object’ are useful in
`ascertaining the way in which one of ordinary skill in the art would
`use these claim terms.
`
`Google Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd. v. Micrografx, LLC, IPR2014-00533, Paper 38 at 9 (June 17, 2015) (citing
`
`Starhome GMBH v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 743 F.3d 849, 856-57 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
`
`
`
`Dictionary definitions confirm that “identifier,” in the context of the ‘464
`
`620547.1
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 20 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Patent, is a name or label used to identify:
`
` “A symbol whose purpose is to identify, indicate, or name a body of data. 2.
`
`A mnemonic code used to identify or name an item of data or data format in
`
`a computer.” Ex. 2033 (Modern Dictionary of Electronics, 359 7th ed.
`
`(1999)) at 359;
`
` “identifier (software): n. The name, address, label, or distinguishing index of
`
`an object in a computer program.” Ex. 2034 (The IEEE Standard Dictionary
`
`of Electrical and Electronics Terms, 6th ed. (1996)) at 499;
`
` “Identifiers (IDs) are used in computer science, data processing, and general
`
`telecommunications; the concept is analogous to that of a ‘name.” … In
`
`computer science, an identifier is a string of bits (or characters) which name
`
`an entity.” Ex. 2011 (Wikipedia, November 2003, “Identifier”); Ex. 2012
`
`(Wikipedia, April 2005, “Identifier”).
`
`Accordingly, the ordinary meaning of “identifier” to one of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`consistent with relevant dictionary definitions, is a name or label that identifies.
`
`Karypis Decl. ¶¶48-49.
`
`b.
`
`‘464 Specification.
`
`The proper standard requires that our construction be not only
`‘broadest’ but also ‘reasonable’ in light of the specification of the
`patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Indeed, the Federal
`
`620547.1
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 21 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Circuit has instructed repeatedly that any claim construction under
`this standard must be consistent with the specification to avoid being
`unreasonably broad. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260
`(Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
`
`Wright Medical Technology, Inc. v. The University of North Carolina, IPR2014-
`
`00626, Paper 13 at 6-7 (November 12, 2014).
`
`The ordinary meaning of “identifier”—as a name or label that identifies—is
`
`“consistent with the specification” of the ‘464 Patent. In the ‘464 Patent, the
`
`“electronic media work identifier” is the “WORK ID” 116, i.e., a name or label
`
`associated with a reference work in the database that identifies the reference work:
`
`620547.1
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 22 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 1 of the ‘464 Patent:
`
` the work to be identified is WORK@t2 (which corresponds to the
`
`“electronic media work” in the ‘464 claims and a broadcast transmission
`
`from Broadcasters 402 in Ferris);
`
` a reference work in the database is WORK@t1 (which does not correspond
`
`to any elements of the ‘464 claims but theoretically corresponds to the
`
`samples in the Ferris); and
`
` the WORK ID 116 is the name or label that identifies the work (which
`
`corresponds to the claimed “electronic media work identifier” but does not
`
`correspond to anything in Ferris).
`
`As illustrated at 110, each reference work in the database WORK@t2 is
`
`extracted to create “Feature(s)(Vector) 114.” In addition, a WORK ID 116 (the
`
`claimed “electronic media work identifier”) is assigned to each reference work in
`
`the database such that the database 112 comprises (1) the Features(s) (Vector) 114
`
`(i.e., the vectors of the reference works in the database) and a separate WORK ID
`
`116 (i.e., the “electronic media work identifier”):
`
` “Each item or record 112 may associate a feature vector of a work 114 with
`
`a, preferably unique, work identifier 116.” ‘464, 6:10-12.
`
` “works of interest are processed to extract a representative feature vector and
`
`this feature vector is assigned a unique identifier. This unique identifier is
`12
`
`620547.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 23 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`then entered into the work identification (WID) database 110 as well as into
`
`the WIDAT database 130.” ‘464, 7:41-46.
`
`Accordingly, consistent with its ordinary meaning as understood by one skilled in
`
`the art, “identifier” as used in the ‘464 specification Patent is a name or label that
`
`identifies the works—i.e., the WORK ID 116. Karypis Decl. ¶52.
`
` 2. The samples disclosed in Ferris are not “electronic media
`work identifiers.”
`
`As set forth above, Petitioner exclusively relies on the samples in Ferris—
`
`the records in the database to be compared to the works being broadcast—as the
`
`claimed “electronic media work identifier.” Pet. 36-38; Moulin Decl. ¶72, 1.B.
`
`The records in the database (samples) are not “electronic media work
`
`identifiers”—names or labels used to identify the “electronic media works”—but
`
`instead are copies of the electronic media works or portions of the electronic media
`
`works themselves.
`
`Returning to Figure 1 of the ‘464 Patent as a framework, the records in the
`
`database in Ferris (the samples) do not correspond to the identifiers—a name or
`
`label used to identify the work, the WORK ID 112 (highlighted in yellow)—but
`
`instead corresponds to WORK@t1 (if the entire work is the sample) or Feature(s)
`
`(Vector) 114 if a portion of the work is the sample (highlighted in red):
`
`620547.1
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 24 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Rather than identifying an “electronic work identifier” in Ferris, Petitioner
`
`identifies the records in the database (the samples) corresponding to the
`
`WORK@t1 (if the sample constitute the entire work to be synchronized or
`
`identified) or the Features(s) Vector 114 (if the sample is only a portion of the
`
`entire work). Ferris, 11; Karypis Decl. ¶¶53-55. The records in the database are
`
`neither a name nor a label used to identify the “electronic media works” and
`
`corresponding records in the database. Rather, they are the records in the database
`
`themselves. Karypis Decl. ¶56.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s effective construction—that, in the context of the ‘464 Patent, an
`
`620547.1
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 164-2 Filed 08/09/19 Page 25 of 89
`Case No. CBM2015-00113
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`“identifier” of something (a record) includes the something (record) itself—is not a
`
`reasonable construction of “identifier.”
`
`“Although it is true that the broadest reasonable construction rule applies for
`
`claim interpretation, the construction must be reasonable in light of the
`
`specification.” ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings,
`
`Inc., IPR2013-00137, Paper 58 at 19 (July 1, 2014).
`
`
`
`To support its position that the records in the database (the samples) are not
`
`only the records to be compared with the electronic media works to be identified
`
`but also the “identifiers” of such works, Petitioner must take the position that an
`
`“identifier” is not just a name or label that identifies (consistent with the term’s
`
`ordinary meaning in the context of the ‘464 specification) but instead also includes
`
`what is to be identified itself. Specifically, because the work to be identified can
`
`be the same as the record in the database (the sample in Ferri