UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`GOOGLE INC. and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case CBM 2015-000401
`
`U.S. Patent 7,774,280
`Filed October 4, 2004
`Issued August 10, 2010
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING TRANSFER OF
`RIGHTS USING SHARED STATE VARIABLES
`____________________
`
`Attorney Docket No. 20318-134361
`Customer No: 22242
`____________________
`
`
`
`RESPONSE OF PATENT OWNER
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`_______________________________
`1 Case CBM2015-00160 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1 
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘280 PATENT ................................................. 4 
`II. 
`III.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................... 14 
`A. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................ 15 
`B. 
`Response to the Board’s Claim Construction .......................... 16 
`1. 
`Rights ............................................................................. 16 
`2. 
`License ........................................................................... 16 
`3. 
`Repository ...................................................................... 16 
`4. 
`State Variable ................................................................. 18 
`5.  Meta-right ...................................................................... 18 
`IV.  THE ‘280 PATENT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR COVERED
`BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW ...................................... 27 
`A. 
`The ‘280 Patent Does Not Claim A Financial Activity
`And Is Context Neutral ............................................................ 28 
`1. 
`The Decision Focused On Optional Financial Uses
`Of The Technology Disclosed
`In The
`Specification, Rather Than The Required Steps Of
`The Claims ..................................................................... 29 
`Google Relied On An Incorrect Standard For CBM
`Review ........................................................................... 33 
`The Decision Misapprehends CG’s Preliminary
`Arguments ...................................................................... 39 
`The ‘280 Claims As A Whole Specify A “Technological
`Invention” And Are Not Eligible For CBM Review For
`This Additional Reason ............................................................ 40 
`V.  GOOGLE HAS NOT PROVEN THAT THE ‘280 CLAIMS
`ARE ANTICIPATED BY STEFIK ................................................... 47 
`A. 
`Stefik’s DRM Approach Manages Only Usage Rights ........... 48 
`B. 
`Stefik Lacks Several Limitations Of The ‘280 Claims ............ 50 
`
`B. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`i
`
`

`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`1. 
`
`Stefik Does Not Disclose: “a meta-right specifying
`a right that can be created when the meta-right is
`exercised” ....................................................................... 50 
`Stefik Does Not Disclose: “determining, by a
`repository, whether the rights consumer is entitled
`to the right specified by the meta-right” ........................ 56 
`Stefik Does Not Disclose: “exercising the meta-
`right to create the right specified by the meta-right
`if the rights consumer is entitled to the right
`specified by the meta-right” ........................................... 61 
`VI.  GOOGLE HAS NOT PROVEN THAT THE ‘280 CLAIMS
`ARE OBVIOUS BASED ON STEFIK AND THE
`KNOWLEDGE OF A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN
`THE ART ........................................................................................... 63 
`VII.  CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 71 
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., In re,
`696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................... 15, 24
`Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., In re,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................. 15
`ATD Corp. v. Lydall, Inc.,
`159 F.3d 534 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................... 63
`Bass, In re,
`314 F.3d 575 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................... 15
`Bicon, Inc. v. Strauman Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................... 29
`Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co.,
`804 F.2d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ................................................................... 47
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, In re,
`No. 2014-1301, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1699 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015) ... 15
`Dow Chem. Co., In re,
`837 F.2d 469 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ................................................................... 65
`E*Trade Financial Corp. v. Droplets,
`CBM2014-00124, Paper 15 (PTAB October 30, 2014) ...................... 44, 46
`E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.,
`849 F.2d 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ........................................................... 19, 20
`Epsilon Data Management, LLC,
`CBM2014-00017, Paper 21 (PTAB April 22, 2014) ................................ 46
`Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. In-Depth Test LLC,
`CBM2015-00060, Paper 11 (PTAB August 3, 2015) ............................... 36
`FedEx Corp. v. Katz Technology Licensing,
`CBM2015-00053, Paper 9 (PTAB June 29, 2015) ................. 28, 34, 35, 37
`Google Inc. v. Simplair, Inc.,
`CBM2015-00020, Paper 11 (PTAB May 19, 2015) ................................. 36
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................ 63, 64
`Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prods. Co.,
`840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ................................................................... 65
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................. 64
`J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`CBM2014-00160, Paper 11 (PTAB Jan. 29, 2015) .................................. 35
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Kahn, In re,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................. 64, 65
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 64
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................... 63, 64, 65
`Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
`733 F.2d 881 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ................................................................... 24
`MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum,
`192 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................. 48
`Merck & Co., Inc., In re,
`800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ................................................................. 65
`Microsoft Corp. v. Secure Web Conference Corp.,
`IPR2014-00745, Paper 12 (PTAB Sept. 29, 2014) ................................... 70
`Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics Inc.,
`976 F.2d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ................................................................. 47
`Motorola Mobility, LLC, v. Intellectual Ventures I, LLC,
`CBM2014-00084, Paper 18 (PTAB August 6, 2014) ............................... 46
`Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States,
`702 F.2d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ................................................................. 65
`Par Pharmaceutical,
`CBM 2014-00149, Paper 11 (Jan. 13, 2015) ............................................ 29
`Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`CBM 2014-00149, Paper 12 (Jan. 13, 2015) ...................................... 29, 40
`Paulsen, In re,
`30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ................................................................... 21
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc) ............................................ 15, 26
`PNC Fin. Servs. Group, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`CBM2014-00032, Paper 13 (PTAB May 22, 2014) ................................. 36
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................... 19, 20, 21, 22
`Salesforce.com, Inc. v. Applications in Internet Time LLC,
`CBM2014-00162, Paper 11 (PTAB Feb. 2, 2015) .................................... 35
`Sega of Am., Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00183, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 10, 2015) ................................. 35
`Sony Corp. of America v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00092, Paper 21 (May 24, 2013) ............................................... 48
`Sony Corp. of America v. Network-1 Techs., Inc.,
`CBM2015-00078, Paper 7 (PTAB July 1, 2015) ...................................... 34
`iv
`
`

`
`Translogic Tech., Inc., In re,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................... 15, 26
`Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.,
`Slip Op. 2014-1194 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2015) ....................................... 36, 37
`Zetec Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Co. LLC,
`IPR2014-00384, Paper 10 (PTAB July 23, 2014) ..................................... 70
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .......................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................. 63
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .......................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 18(a) ............................................................................................ 1
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ............................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 326(a) .......................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 326(e) .......................................................................................... 3
`AIA § 18(a) ..................................................................................................... 2
`AIA § 18(d) ......................................................................................... 2, 28, 33
`Other Authorities
`157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) ........................................... 28
`157 Cong. Rec. S5441 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) ..................................... 28, 38
`77 Fed. Reg. 48735–36 ........................................................................... 28, 33
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756–73 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................... 27, 41, 44
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. 42.220 ............................................................................................. 2
`37 C.F.R. 42.300 ........................................................................................... 14
`37 C.F.R. 42.301(a) .................................................................................. 2, 28
`37 C.F.R. 42.301(b) .......................................................................... 27, 40, 44
`37 C.F.R. 42.304(a) ...................................................................................... 27
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This proceeding commenced when Google, Inc. (“Google”) filed a Petition
`
`for Covered Business Method Review under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
`
`(“AIA”) regarding claims of United States Patent No. 7,774,280 (“the ‘280
`
`patent”)(Paper 1.) Patent Owner, ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. (“CG”), timely filed
`
`a Preliminary Response. (Paper 8.) The Board entered its Decision on Institution
`
`on June 24, 2015, by which it denied certain asserted grounds of invalidity and
`
`ordered the institution of covered business method review of claims 1, 5 and 11 of
`
`the ‘280 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324 and § 18(a) . (Paper 9.) Trial has been
`
`commenced on the following grounds:
`
`A. Claims 1, 5 and 11 as being anticipated under § 102(b) by U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,634,012 to Stefik et al. (“Stefik”); and
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1, 5 and 11 as being unpatentable under § 103(a) over the
`
`combination of Stefik and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art.
`
`(Id. at 43.)
`
`On September 11, 2015, the Board entered a Decision instituting covered
`
`business method patent review in response to a Petition filed by Apple Inc. in
`
`CBM2015-00160. The Decision instituted CBM review of the same claims based
`
`on the same grounds instituted in this proceeding. The Decision further ordered
`
`1
`
`

`
`that CBM2015-00160 be joined with this proceeding. (Paper 13.)
`
`CG respectfully submits this Response in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 326(a)(8) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.220, opposing the Petition and responding to the
`
`Decision as to the instituted grounds. The Response is supported by the declaration
`
`of CG’s retained qualified technical expert, David M. Martin Jr., Ph.D. (Ex. 2009),
`
`as well as other accompanying exhibits.
`
`Under § 18(a)(1)(E) of the AIA, the Board may institute a transitional
`
`review proceeding only for a patent that is a covered business method patent. AIA
`
`§18(d)(1) and 37 C.F.R. §42.301(a) define a covered business method patent as
`
`one “that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data
`
`processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management
`
`of a financial product or service ….” CG opposes the Petition and objects to the
`
`institution of trial in this proceeding because the ‘280 patent does not claim a
`
`system or method for performing data processing or other operations used in the
`
`practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, and is
`
`thus not eligible for CBM patent review.
`
`The definition of covered business method patent excludes patents for
`
`“technological inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1). The ‘280 claims provide a novel and
`
`nonobvious
`
`technical solution
`
`to problems associated with digital rights
`
`management (“DRM”). The Board should reconsider its initial determination and
`
`2
`
`

`
`dismiss this proceeding on the grounds that the ‘280 patent is not a covered
`
`business method patent eligible for review.
`
`If the Board maintains that the ‘280 patent is eligible for CBM patent
`
`review, it should ultimately affirm the validity of claims 1, 5 and 11 over Stefik
`
`alone, and in combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Google bears the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that
`
`the claims are invalid. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e). It has not carried its burden and could
`
`never do so.
`
`Stefik is directed to usage rights, which are rights about digital content.
`
`Usage rights define the rights that one has to use an item of digital content and to
`
`further distribute it. The ‘280 patent claims are directed to meta-rights, which are
`
`rights about other rights. Meta-rights define the rights that one has to generate,
`
`manipulate, modify, dispose of or otherwise derive other rights. Exercising a usage
`
`right results in action to the associated digital content; whereas meta-rights are
`
`exercisable in a way that is independent of an action to content.
`
`According to claims at issue, exercising a meta-right creates a new right.
`
`Stefik does not disclose, nor does it suggest, digital rights management involving
`
`meta-rights for creating new rights independent of the exercise of a usage right.
`
`The only rights involved in the DRM schemes disclosed in Stefik are usage rights,
`
`which are not meta-rights. There are other patentable distinctions between the
`
`3
`
`

`
`subject matter of claims 1, 5 and 11 and the digital rights management techniques
`
`disclosed in Stefik. The claims distinguish over Stefik under the claim construction
`
`applied in the Decision. Those differences are even more apparent under the
`
`broadest reasonable construction of “meta-right” advocated by CG, which
`
`correctly incorporates that a meta-right is not a usage right because exercising a
`
`meta-right does not result in action to content. Google’s anticipation challenge
`
`must therefore fail.
`
`Google has also not shown that any of claims 1, 5 or 11 would have been
`
`obvious based on Stefik and the knowledge of persons skilled in the art. The
`
`Petition entirely lacks any persuasive fact-based analysis with some rational
`
`underpinning demonstrating obviousness.
`
`The Board should therefore reconsider its initial Decision and dismiss the
`
`proceeding, holding that the ‘280 patent is not eligible for CBM patent review. If
`
`the proceeding is not dismissed on this jurisdictional basis, a final decision should
`
`be entered affirming the validity of the challenged claims.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘280 PATENT
`
`The ‘280 patent is drawn to specific technologies in the field of computer
`
`security, more specifically, in the area of digital rights management. (Ex. 2009 at
`
`¶29.) Although the Internet has fundamentally altered the way in which digital
`
`content is accessed by consumers, from its earliest days there has been concern
`
`4
`
`

`
`about how owners of content could continue to protect the fruits of their labor. (Id.)
`
`Because the Internet was perceived as “a pirate’s paradise,” “the instant and
`
`practically costless copying and distribution the Net facilitates ha[d] made many
`
`creators, authors, and copyright-holders balk at digitizing and posting their ideas.”
`
`(Ex. 2002.)
`
`In the early 1990s, a team at Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center, led by
`
`Mark Stefik, obtained a number of patents for their digital rights management
`
`technologies, including the ‘012 patent asserted by Google against the ‘280 patent
`
`in this proceeding. (Ex. 2009 at ¶30.)
`
`Stefik’s solution included introducing the concepts of repositories and usage
`
`rights into a system for content distribution. (Id. at ¶31.) “Usage rights” signifies
`
`rights granted to a recipient of a digital work, and defining how a digital work can
`
`be used and if it can be further distributed. (Id.) Each usage right may have one or
`
`more specified conditions, which must be satisfied before the right may be
`
`exercised. Stefik envisioned that the “repositories” would be trusted computer
`
`entities that embody enforcement elements in the system. (Id.) The repositories are
`
`trusted to fairly and reliably carry out transactions in the system. As such, the
`
`repositories are required to maintain three types of “integrities” – physical,
`
`communications, and behavioral – in support of the associated usage rights. (Id.)
`
`5
`
`

`
`Although the DRM architecture of the Stefik patent allowed the publisher of
`
`a digital work some control over the usage rights granted to downstream parties of
`
`a distribution chain, this aspect of Stefik’s DRM scheme had certain limitations.
`
`(Id. at ¶32.) For example, in the Stefik patent, the usage rights to be associated with
`
`a distributed copy of a digital work are specified parameters of the usage right
`
`(e.g., transfer, copy, loan) that is invoked to distribute the digital work. (Id.) Stefik
`
`does not disclose an optimal mechanism to control how distributors define usage
`
`rights for their customers independent of the transactions associated with
`
`exercising a usage right to transfer the content of the digital work. (Id.) In addition,
`
`only a few of the usage right transactions disclosed in Stefik permit associating
`
`usage rights with the distributed copy of the digital work that are broader than the
`
`rights of sender. (Id.)
`
`The ‘280 patent builds on the innovations taught by Stefik in the ‘012 patent.
`
`(Id. at ¶33.) Recognizing that “business models for creating, distributing, and using
`
`digital content and other items involve a plurality of parties,” i.e., content creators,
`
`publishers, distributors, and end-users (Ex. 1001 at 2:24-26), and that parties
`
`residing upstream in the distribution chain may wish to exercise “control over
`
`downstream parties” (id. at 2:33-34), the inventors of the ‘280 patent developed
`
`digital rights management technologies based on “meta-rights . . . enforceable by a
`
`repository.” (Id. at Cl. 1, 15:13-14.) The ‘280 patent addresses constraints of prior
`
`6
`
`

`
`DRM systems in which “the publisher cannot readily control rights granted to
`
`downstream parties” and the schemes are limited by “the concept of simply
`
`granting rights to others that are a subset of possessed rights . . . .” (Id. at 2:34-39
`
`and 45-48.)
`
`“Meta-rights” are different in at least two significant respects from the
`
`“usage rights” taught in the prior Stefik patents. As the ‘280 patent teaches, the
`
`exercise of “usage rights” results in “actions to content.” (Id. at 7:26-27.) For
`
`example, usage rights can be for viewing, printing, or copying digital content. In
`
`contrast, the exercise of meta-rights results in new or altered rights: “When meta-
`
`rights are exercised, new rights are created from the meta-rights or existing rights
`
`are disposed as the result of exercising the meta-rights.” (Id. at 7:28-31.)
`
`Significantly, no “actions to content” result from the exercise of meta-rights.
`
`The ‘280 patent expressly incorporates the prior Stefik ‘012 patent and its
`
`teachings concerning trusted repositories. (Id. at 1:40-42.) Each claim of the patent
`
`specifies that the meta-right is “enforceable by a repository,” and further requires a
`
`user entitlement determination step also performed by a repository.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’280 patent is directed to a computer-implemented method
`
`for transferring rights adapted to be associated with items from a rights supplier to
`
`a rights consumer, the method comprising:
`
`7
`
`

`
`obtaining a set of rights associated with an item, the set of
`rights including a meta-right specifying a right that can be created
`when the meta-right is exercised, wherein the meta-right is provided
`in digital form and is enforceable by a repository;
`determining, by a repository, whether the rights consumer is
`entitled to the right specified by the meta-right; and
`exercising the meta-right to create the right specified by the
`meta-right if the rights consumer is entitled to the right specified by
`the meta-right, wherein the created right includes at least one state
`variable based on the set of rights and used for determining a state of
`the created right.
`
`Dependent claim 5 recites “the method of claim 1, wherein the state variable is
`
`updated upon exercise of a right associated with the state variable.” Dependent
`
`claim 11 recites “the method of claim 1, further comprising generating a license
`
`including the created right, if the rights consumer is entitled to the right specified
`
`by the meta-right.” (Id. at Cl. 1, 5 and 11.)
`
`The ‘280 patent confirms that usage rights define one or more permitted
`
`manners of use of digital content, such as viewing movies and e-books. (Id. at
`
`2:14-19.) The patent specification states that “[m]eta-rights are the rights that one
`
`has to generate, manipulate, modify, dispose of or otherwise derive other rights.”
`
`(Id. at 5:47-49.) Both usage rights and meta-rights are enforced by repositories. As
`
`mentioned, a key difference between usage rights and meta-rights is the result from
`
`exercising the rights: When exercising usage rights, actions to content result. (Id. at
`8
`
`

`
`7:23-34.) For example, usage rights can be for viewing, printing, or copying digital
`
`content. In contrast, the exercise of meta-rights results in new or altered rights:
`
`“When meta-rights are exercised, new rights are created from the meta-rights or
`
`existing rights are disposed as the result of exercising the meta-rights.” (Id. at 7:28-
`
`31.) Claim 1 is specific to meta-rights that can create a new right when exercised.
`
`For example, Figure 11 of the ‘280 patent and the accompanying description
`
`(id. at 12:39-56) describes a license embodying a meta-right (shown on the left as
`
`item 1101) that is exercised to create instances of a usage right for at least two
`
`users (shown on the right as items 1102 and 1103).
`
`
`
`Meta-rights are particularly useful in multi-party, i.e., multi-tier distribution
`
`models in which intermediate entities are relied on to issue rights and distribute
`
`content. (Id. at 6:1-8.) For example, Figure 2 of the ‘280 patent shows relationships
`
`between content providers, distributors and end users being managed through
`
`independently exercisable meta-rights.
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`As
`
`illustrated, Publisher 210 publishes content for distribution
`
`to
`
`distributors, such as Distributor 220, which distribute content to retailers, such as
`
`Retailer 230. Retailer 230 sells content to end users, such as User 240. (Id. at 6:19-
`
`22.) In this model, the parties may negotiate various business relationships with
`
`each other, including relationships in which a recipient receives usage rights
`
`beyond those possessed by the upstream party. (Id. at 6:22-27.) In such a model,
`
`meta-rights permit the Publisher to control what type and how many rights
`
`Distributor 220 may grant to Retailer 230, and what type and how many rights the
`
`Retailer 230 may grant User 240. (Id. at 6:47-52 and 58-60.)
`
`For example, Publisher 210 may grant an independently exercisable meta-
`
`right 214 permitting Distributor 220 to grant Retailer 230 a usage right derived
`
`from the meta-right 214, such as the usage right 214’ to distribute or sell. (Id. at
`
`6:47-52.) The meta-right 214 also permits the Distributor to derive a meta-right
`
`10
`
`

`
`216, which in turn permits Retailer 230 to derive up to 500 usage rights 216’
`
`granting end users the right to view and print the digital work. (Id. at 6:53-57.)
`
`The retailer may also grant meta-right 218 permitting the user to share rights with
`
`other users. (Id. at 6:67-7:3.) As the Figure 2 illustrates visually, the meta-rights
`
`are separate from usage rights.
`
`The ‘280 patent also explains that meta-rights can be specified using XrML,
`
`which is a type of rights expression language that can be used for meta-rights and
`
`usage rights. (Id. at 8:17-24 & Fig. 4.) The specification of a meta-right includes a
`
`specific grant, “such as rights to offer usage rights, grant usage rights, obtain usage
`
`rights, transfer usage rights, exchange usage rights . . . .” (Id. at 7:45-52.) It may
`
`also identify one or more parties to whom the meta-right is granted, and may
`
`include conditions and state variables, which control the exercise of the granted
`
`meta-right. (Id. at 7:53-58.)
`
`Figure 12 illustrates an example of meta-rights containing conditions and
`
`state variables used in deriving other rights.
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`A meta-right 1201 grants a distributor an independently exercisable right to
`
`issue site licenses for an e-book, but only to affiliated clubs, and subject to the
`
`further condition that each site license allow no more than five members to
`
`simultaneously play the e-book. (Id. at 12:57-62.) The meta-right 1201 specifies
`
`the conditions “affiliated club” and “simultaneous use = 5.” It also includes a state
`
`variable field 1207 for use in enforcing the affiliated club condition. (Id. at 12:62-
`
`64.) The meta-right 1201 is exercisable to derive corresponding meta-rights 1202
`
`and 1203, granting the Acme and Foo clubs, respectively, the right to create and
`
`grant “play” usage rights to their members. (Id. at 12:64-13:4.) The exercise of this
`
`12
`
`

`
`meta-right creates other meta-rights, without anything happening to the content of
`
`the e-book. In the derived meta-rights, the state variable field is populated with the
`
`particular club identity. The usage rights 1204, 1205, 1206 derived from meta-
`
`rights 1202 and 1203 permit individual members to play the e-book, subject to the
`
`condition of no more than five members of one club playing the e-book
`
`simultaneously. (Id. at 12:59-13:8.) Thus, usage rights to play an e-book are
`
`created for downstream parties in a manner controlled by the content provider, but
`
`the creation of the new rights does not involve exercising any usage rights
`
`associated with the e-book or performing actions on the e-book’s content.
`
`The ‘280 patent permits associating state variables with both meta-rights and
`
`created usage rights. (Id. at 7:66-8:12; 8:35-45). For example, a usage right created
`
`through exercising a meta-right could have the right to print content three times,
`
`with the state variable being incremented with each print. After three prints the
`
`condition is exhausted and no more printing is allowed. (Id. at 7:66-8:10.) Another
`
`example of a state variable is time, where a user might only have the right to play a
`
`movie within thirty days. (Id. at 8:10-17.)
`
`The ‘280 patent provides other examples of how state variables can operate
`
`with meta-rights. In one example illustrated in Figure 10, a personal computer
`
`(PC) of a user, Alice, can be configured to play an e-book according to a user
`
`rights license up to five times. Via a meta-right, a new right can be created so that
`
`13
`
`

`
`a personal data assistant (PDA) of Alice also can obtain a right to play the e-book,
`
`subject to the condition Alice can play the e-book a combined total of five times.
`
`This can be enforced because PC and PDA share the same state variables,
`
`“AlicePlayEbook.” (Id. at 12:25-32 and FIG. 10.)
`
`In the example of Figure 11, a state variable identifies a location on a server
`
`(in this case, using the URL www.foou.edu) where a common state of rights is
`
`tracked. As described in the specification, the URL www.foou.edu could point to a
`
`common state of rights server as shown in box 801 of Figure 8 that has a common
`
`state of rights repository. (Id. at 10:55-61; see also 12:15-21.)
`
`The ‘280 patent discloses a meta-rights manager module 510 in Figure 5,
`
`which processes requests for exercising a meta-right, which involves verifying the
`
`existence of a valid license embodying the meta-right, and evaluating whether the
`
`state variables and conditions of the license embodying the meta-right are
`
`satisfied. (Id. at 8:56-9:13.) If all requirements are satisfied, the meta-right can be
`
`exercised. The meta-rights manager exercises the meta-right and invokes a license
`
`manager 504 to create the new rights. (Id. at 9:33-43.)
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In a CBM patent review, the Board construes claim terms in an unexpired
`
`patent using their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). The claim language should
`
`14
`
`

`
`be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, No. 2014-1301, 2015 U.S. App.
`
`LEXIS 1699, at *14 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`
`367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The broadest reasonable meaning given to
`
`claim language must take into account any definitions presented in the
`
`specification. Id. (citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Under this
`
`standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure.
`
`See In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149-50 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012)(vacating Board’s rejection of claims based on incorrect construction of
`
`“electrochemical sensor”, which was inconsistent with meaning ascertained in
`
`view of entire specification.); see also In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007)(citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005)(en banc)).
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The Goldberg Declaration submitted with the Petition defines the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as a person with a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering, computer science or a related field with a few years (e.g., two years) of
`
`experience with digital content distribution and/or computer security. (Ex. 1014 at
`
`¶10.) CG agrees with this definition. (Ex. 2009 at ¶16.)
`
`15
`
`

`
`B. Response to the Board’s Claim Construction
`
`Google proposed constructions for the terms: (1) “rights”; (2) “license”; (3)
`
`“state variable”; (4) “repository”; and (5) “meta-right.” (Paper 1 at 27-36.)
`
`1. Rights
`The parties have agreed that the term “rights” refers to a usage right or meta-
`
`right, depending on the context. The Board noted the parties