Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 44
`571-272-7822 Entered: December 11, 2014
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`______
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00593, Patent No. 8,045,952
`Case No. IPR2013-00594, Patent No. 8,050,652
`Case No. IPR2013-00597, Patent No. 8,230,099
`Case No. IPR2013-00598, Patent No. 8,214,873
`__________
`
`Held: October 20, 2014
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before: BRIAN McNAMARA, PETER CHEN, and STACEY
`WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822 Entered: December 11, 2014
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`______
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00593, Patent No. 8,045,952
`Case No. IPR2013-00594, Patent No. 8,050,652
`Case No. IPR2013-00597, Patent No. 8,230,099
`Case No. IPR2013-00598, Patent No. 8,214,873
`__________
`
`Held: October 20, 2014
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before: BRIAN McNAMARA, PETER CHEN, and STACEY
`WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00597
`Patent No. 8,230,099
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`DAVID L. FEHRMAN, ESQUIRE
`
`
`MEHRAN ARJOMAND, ESQUIRE
`
`
`ALEX S. YAP, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Morrison & Foerster
`19th Floor, 5-1 Marunouchi 1-Chome
`
`
`
`
`Chioda-Ku, Tokyo 100-6529, Japan
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`THOMAS J. ENGELLENNER, ESQUIRE
`
`
`LANA A. GLADSTEIN, ESQUIRE
`
`
`REZA MOLLAAGHABABA, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`
`
`
`
`125 High Street
`
`
`Boston, Massachusetts 02110-2735
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday,
`October 20, 2014, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`28
`
`29
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Good afternoon, everyone. This
`
`30
`
`is the oral hearing in four consolidated cases, Yamaha Corporation of
`
`31
`
`America, Petitioner, versus Black Hills Media, LLC, Patent Owner.
`
`32
`
`The cases are IPR2013-00593, -00594, -00597 and-00598.
`
`33
`
`34
`
`Beginning with the Petitioner, could I have counsel
`
`please introduce themselves.
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00597
`Patent No. 8,230,099
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor, I'm
`
`David Fehrman from Morrison Foerster, with me is Mehran
`
`Arjomand.
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Thank you. Patent Owner?
`
`MR. ENGELLENER: Good afternoon, Your Honor,
`
`Tom Engellenner, from Pepper Hamilton. With me, Lana Gladstein,
`
`also from Pepper Hamilton.
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Thank you. Well, welcome
`
`everyone to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. As we said in the
`
`10
`
`initial scheduling order, each party will have 75 minutes of total
`
`11
`
`argument time. You can allocate that any way you think is most
`
`12
`
`efficient for your particular argument. The Petitioner bears the
`
`13
`
`ultimate burden, so the Petitioner will go first, present its case with
`
`14
`
`the -- with respect to the challenged claims. Thereafter the Patent
`
`15
`
`Owner will argue its opposition to the Petitioner's case.
`
`16
`
`The Patent Owner, I believe, also has a motion to exclude
`
`17
`
`that is pending, so it will present its arguments in support of the
`
`18
`
`motion to exclude. Thereafter, we will hear from the Petitioner, who
`
`19
`
`will use any time it has reserved to rebut the Patent Owner's
`
`20
`
`opposition, and to oppose the Patent Owner's motion to exclude.
`
`21
`
`And, finally, we will hear from the Patent Owner solely
`
`22
`
`on the issue of rebutting the Petitioner's opposition to its motion to
`
`23
`
`exclude.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Is that clear?
`
`(No response.)
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00597
`Patent No. 8,230,099
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Is everybody ready to begin?
`
`MR. ENGELLENER: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE: All right, let's begin with the Petitioner. Is
`
`there some amount of time you would like me to alert you to?
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Yes, if you could alert me at 50
`
`minutes.
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Fifty minutes.
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Good afternoon. We have, as you
`
`mentioned, four IPRs, all being argued here, with four different
`
`10
`
`patents listed here in slide 1. I'm going to start with the two patents
`
`11
`
`that are related, parent and continuation, the Qureshey patents,
`
`12
`
`IPR2013-00593, and 00594. Beginning just to summarize the
`
`13
`
`grounds of institution in the '952 patent, and those are three grounds,
`
`14
`
`claims 9, 10 and 14 as anticipated by Berman, 13 as obvious over
`
`15
`
`Berman, and 9, 10 and 14 as anticipated by Wolff.
`
`16
`
`The '652 patent, the continuation, numerous claims as
`
`17
`
`being obvious over White, and many claims obvious over Qureshey
`
`18
`
`and Berman, and three claims obvious over Qureshey, Berman and
`
`19
`
`Leeke. Indicated on slide 4.
`
`20
`
`So, the primary issues of claim construction involved
`
`21
`
`here, one which covers all four of the patents, and that's playlist,
`
`22
`
`another is playlist assigned to the electronic device. Here today in our
`
`23
`
`time, opening, we'll focus on the playlist. So, as is the case in all
`
`24
`
`issues of claim construction, we look at the claim language itself, the
`
`25
`
`specification and extrinsic evidence.
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00597
`Patent No. 8,230,099
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So, looking at claim 9 of the '952 patent, indicated on
`
`slide 7, it identifies a playlist, and then it says, "The playlist
`
`identifying a plurality of songs." It also has another recitation of
`
`"information enabling the electronic device to obtain the ones of the
`
`plurality of songs." So, two recitations on the -- in two receiving
`
`steps.
`
`The specification identifies the playlist 1528 at column
`
`21, lines 62 to 65, which was the basis of the Board's construction in
`
`the institution decision, and it has a sentence that says, "A playlist,
`
`10
`
`which is a list of audio files," and it continues, "Associated URLs of
`
`11
`
`where the audio files were retrieved from."
`
`12
`
`The paragraph above that gives more detailed description
`
`13
`
`of what the system -- how it's constructed and that's basically relating
`
`14
`
`to figure 15 of the patent, we will illustrate on slide 10, the portion at
`
`15
`
`column 21, lines 40 to 52. And figure 15 has three different devices,
`
`16
`
`network-enabled audio devices. The first highlight here on slide 10 is,
`
`17
`
`"The network-enabled audio device 1510 has a storage space 1512 for
`
`18
`
`network-enabled audio device software 1526." And then it recites, "A
`
`19
`
`playlist 1528," it has a comma, and says, "and associated URLs and
`
`20
`
`songs within the playlist."
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Similarly, the --
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Counsel, what's the difference
`
`23
`
`between a playlist and songs within the playlist?
`
`24
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: The playlist is identification
`
`25
`
`information and the songs are the actual song data.
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00597
`Patent No. 8,230,099
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: So, is the song data in the list, or
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: No.
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay.
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: And that actually is on a slide coming
`
`is it --
`
`soon.
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay.
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: So, this is the second recitation of
`
`another audio device, 1520, it says the playlist 1528, and then again,
`
`10
`
`"and associated URLs and songs." And then finally it has a PC 1508
`
`11
`
`and it similarly recites, "A playlist 1534, and associated URLs and
`
`12
`
`songs."
`
`13
`
`So, here we have it a little easier with the figure 15 next
`
`14
`
`to it, and I've just highlighted the corresponding side. So, this is the
`
`15
`
`network-enabled audio device 1510 on the far left, this is slide 13, and
`
`16
`
`I've highlighted the -- it's a little bit difficult to see, but the playlist
`
`17
`
`1528 is on the far left, and there's a small box inside the kind of
`
`18
`
`cylindrical item there. And then similarly, the device 1520 is
`
`19
`
`highlighted, that's on the right side, and that has, again, a playlist that's
`
`20
`
`numbered, it's actually misidentified, I think, in either the drawing or
`
`21
`
`it should be 1530, instead of 1528, but in another separate box. And
`
`22
`
`then in the middle, the PC 1508, again, has a playlist 1534.
`
`23
`
`Now, this figure also shows that there are songs and
`
`24
`
`associated URLs, so they have a separate identification of a playlist
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00597
`Patent No. 8,230,099
`
`and then it stores songs and URLs, URLs are information that you can
`
`use to go obtain songs from a network.
`
`So, there's a pretty clear distinction between these three
`
`different items. This is illustrated most clearly in slide 16.
`
`So, looking at the claim language and the specification
`
`together, the playlist portion that identifies a plurality of songs, it
`
`clearly relates to the playlist which is a list of audio files. It's
`
`interesting because this one sentence doesn't include the comma after
`
`audio files, whereas all the other sentences in the paragraph above that
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`did, but I think with that paragraph above, and figure 15, it's clear that
`
`11
`
`the playlist is the list of audio files, and then as illustrated in slide 18,
`
`12
`
`the information enabling the electronic device to obtain ones of the
`
`13
`
`songs, that is something else which, for example, could be URLs.
`
`14
`
`JUDGE CHEN: But, counsel, you mean there's no
`
`15
`
`comma preceding the phrase "and associated URLs?"
`
`16
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: In this sentence, there's not. And all
`
`17
`
`the other sentences in the paragraph above that describe and introduce
`
`18
`
`those, there is a comma. But even separate from the comma, I think
`
`19
`
`when you look at the figure 15 back here on slide 16, there's a pretty
`
`20
`
`clear indication of the box, small boxes are the playlists, and then the
`
`21
`
`songs and URLs are indicated as being stored in the large cylindrical
`
`22
`
`space.
`
`23
`
`So, the broadest reasonable construction, consistent with
`
`24
`
`the specification, "is simply a list of audio files." It's very
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00597
`Patent No. 8,230,099
`
`straightforward, it lays it out, says it's a list, and there's other
`
`information that enables you to get songs, and then there are songs.
`
`Then we move to extrinsic evidence, which is always at a
`
`lower level than the specification, of course, and the claim language
`
`itself, but here the extrinsic evidence really does support that
`
`construction, and first we're looking at slide 20, which is extrinsic
`
`evidence submitted by the Patent Owner, and that's a Microsoft
`
`handbook, and it has an indication that you can create a playlist and
`
`put a single item in a playlist. Well, Patent Owner's construction is
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`seeking to have a playlist being things that are organized to be
`
`11
`
`arranged to be played in a sequence. Well, this information, if you
`
`12
`
`have a single item in a playlist, it's kind of hard to be playing that in a
`
`13
`
`sequence.
`
`14
`
`Now, other parts of this same Microsoft handbook, which
`
`15
`
`were not initially provided by the Patent Owner, also give -- shed light
`
`16
`
`on kind of the normal use of playlist. So, it introduces the media
`
`17
`
`library, at slide 21, it's page xi of the handbook, and it says that the
`
`18
`
`playlist you use to organize your audio and video files. It's really at
`
`19
`
`the highest level an organizational tool.
`
`20
`
`And another page from the introduction section is page 3,
`
`21
`
`slide 22, and it says that the media library can help you organize all of
`
`22
`
`your media selections, keep all your classical music in one playlist
`
`23
`
`and your jazz in another.
`
`24
`
`So, this is organizing to help you locate and find the
`
`25
`
`music that you want to listen to.
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00597
`Patent No. 8,230,099
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: So, counsel, there's a difference,
`
`then, between, at least as this reference discusses it, there is a
`
`difference between a library and a playlist?
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Yes, I think that's true.
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay, so just a group of
`
`identifying information that identifies songs alone is not a --
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Well, a library --
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: I'm trying to decide the
`
`difference between a list in the context of a library and a list in the
`
`10
`
`context of a playlist.
`
`11
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Well, if you're talking about just the
`
`12
`
`contents of a library, then --
`
`13
`
`14
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Context.
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Right, but I'm saying a library, if it
`
`15
`
`has some file structure with a list of that, that broadly could be a
`
`16
`
`playlist as well, it's simply a listing of files. But this says take that
`
`17
`
`library and subdivide it into smaller lists. Put your one type of music
`
`18
`
`in one, another in another, music in another.
`
`19
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: So, in that case, you might have
`
`20
`
`a playlist that's just your classical music is -- let's say all of your
`
`21
`
`classical music, then, is in one playlist, constitutes one playlist.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Yeah.
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: And all of your rock and roll
`
`24
`
`constitutes another playlist?
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00597
`Patent No. 8,230,099
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: That's true. And if you were just
`
`getting your computer and you only had a few songs and didn't divide
`
`them, your total library there is also a playlist. It's a listing of songs.
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay.
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: But this is -- the concept here is if you
`
`have a lot of material, you're going to organize it and group it into
`
`sections so that you can more easily find it.
`
`Now, this was something where the Patent Owner's
`
`expert was questioned about the purpose of a playlist, and his position
`
`10
`
`was that the only purpose of a playlist is to play things in order, not
`
`11
`
`that you could use it to group your material into desired subparts. So,
`
`12
`
`we just have an excerpt here at slide 23 from Mr. Zatkovich's
`
`13
`
`deposition, and he was asked about having a playlist containing every
`
`14
`
`Beethoven symphony, every Mozart opera, and what the purpose of
`
`15
`
`that was, whether it's just to be put in subgroups, and he said, no, the
`
`16
`
`only purpose of that is to play things in order, in a sequence. So,
`
`17
`
`that's nine symphonies and 22 operas, with the only purpose being to
`
`18
`
`play it in a sequence.
`
`19
`
`JUDGE WHITE: Counsel, isn't your position that one of
`
`20
`
`the purposes would be to create this order?
`
`21
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Oh, certainly a playlist can be
`
`22
`
`employed by a player to play an order depending upon the nature of
`
`23
`
`the player and the software that's used to control it. But the term that's
`
`24
`
`being construed is playlist, and what that is. How that playlist is used
`
`25
`
`and employed is not part and parcel of the playlist, per se.
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00597
`Patent No. 8,230,099
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE WHITE: Counsel, didn't your declarant testify
`
`at his deposition that order is inherent in a list, so therefore that a
`
`playlist would inherently have some type of order?
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Absolutely, a listing needs to have an
`
`order. The question is what do you do with that listing. And as we
`
`get into the latter two patents, it's a good example -- those two patents
`
`come out and say, you select one or more from the list. That's one
`
`way of use of a playlist. You just select a song. So, you've done your
`
`subdividing -- and the most common for classical, certainly, is
`
`10
`
`symphonies or operas, you would select one of those. You're not
`
`11
`
`likely to be listening to 22 operas in a row.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`JUDGE CHEN: So, is an order a sequence?
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: No, I think sequence implies a
`
`14
`
`functional operation, and we're construing the list, the playlist itself,
`
`15
`
`the information. So, the -- a list of courses has an order to it, it's not --
`
`16
`
`otherwise there's no identification, but what's done with that list is not
`
`17
`
`specified by the list, per se.
`
`18
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: So, is one type of list, just a
`
`19
`
`random listing or some other kind of ordered listing of songs or media
`
`20
`
`things, and another type of list would be a list that's intended to be
`
`21
`
`played in sequence? Aren't both of those playlists?
`
`22
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Well, you can have something that's
`
`23
`
`intended to be played in sequence, but in between that is you have a
`
`24
`
`list of groupings of related items, and whether or not you play them in
`
`25
`
`sequence doesn't mean they're not a playlist. You've organized them,
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00597
`Patent No. 8,230,099
`
`you've put your classical music together, your rock together, in
`
`different various playlists. If you have a thousand songs, maybe
`
`you're going to have a lot of lists to enable you to go locate what you
`
`want to hear in a simple, straightforward fashion.
`
`So, the organization factor is the first and highest level,
`
`but I've never said, and we've never maintained that a playlist cannot
`
`in many cases be used by a player, with its control system, to play
`
`something in a sequence.
`
`So, we have additional extrinsic evidence, which is here's
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`another -- it's a patent application, publication, by Microsoft, and it
`
`11
`
`indicates, in the broadest sense, "a playlist is a listing of one or more
`
`12
`
`references," and it indicates, optionally, in the next sentence, "the
`
`13
`
`playlist may specify an order of play."
`
`14
`
`Another is a patent to Apple, "Playlists are collections of
`
`15
`
`media that may or may not be in any particular order." So, when you
`
`16
`
`first make your library, I guess you could just dump it all in there. It's
`
`17
`
`in an order, but it's not in an order that you have organized. And you
`
`18
`
`can organize those more and more, and certainly if you wish, you can
`
`19
`
`organize them in an order that you wish to have them played,
`
`20
`
`assuming your player has the ability to do that.
`
`21
`
`So, taking into account, again, we go back, broadest
`
`22
`
`reasonable construction, consistent with the specification, it's "a list of
`
`23
`
`audio files." This is a reasonable construction, it's the broadest one, it
`
`24
`
`follows the statement in the specification, and there's no -- no reason
`
`25
`
`to be imparting a functional limitation into the term "playlist" itself.
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00597
`Patent No. 8,230,099
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So, then we move to the unpatentability issues, based
`
`upon the prior art. The first one we address is Berman, and the Board
`
`provided a detailed description of the operation of Berman, and that
`
`description is accurate and correct. Pages 15 to 16 of the institution
`
`decision show on slides 27 and 28. And in Berman, the detail of the
`
`operation here is heavily shown and very much of it is with respect to
`
`the operation of figures 3 and 4, figure 3 in particular. Slide 29 is the
`
`first slide that shows figure 3 and a portion of the corresponding
`
`description.
`
`10
`
`So, slide 30 highlights the initial step. The initial step is
`
`11
`
`power on. In the Patent Owner's papers, they took the position that
`
`12
`
`synchronization of the song list in Berman occurs at power on.
`
`13
`
`We go next to slide 31, slide 31 is the user selects a
`
`14
`
`category of music, and that has an excerpt from column 6, lines 64 to
`
`15
`
`66, the selection of a music category or type of song to play back from
`
`16
`
`a list.
`
`17
`
`In the next step, the playback device sends the version of
`
`18
`
`that song list that has been selected, the current song list, to the
`
`19
`
`directory and user list server, which is shown in figure 1.
`
`20
`
`That server checks to see if additional music has been
`
`21
`
`added to the song list, and this is done after the category has been
`
`22
`
`selected. So, if it determines a new song list is available, it sends back
`
`23
`
`an updated song list. So, if the person had obtained rights to
`
`24
`
`additional songs in the meantime, that updated song list now has
`
`25
`
`added songs to it, so if it's an artist, if that was the category of
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00597
`Patent No. 8,230,099
`
`selection, and four or five new songs were purchased or rights were
`
`obtained to that, those extra songs would be added to the song list for
`
`that artist.
`
`JUDGE WHITE: Counsel, is the song list in any way
`
`related to or created by the user's selections? Because the user does a
`
`selection and then you receive a song list?
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Yes, the song list is -- comes in after
`
`the selection of the user selects artist, title, album. Now, that song list
`
`may have been created by somebody else, it may have been created by
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`the user, but it is a song list.
`
`11
`
`JUDGE WHITE: Is it the same song list regardless of
`
`12
`
`what the user's selections are? So, whether you select the category
`
`13
`
`country music or the category rock music, would you receive the same
`
`14
`
`song list?
`
`15
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: No, you would receive a different
`
`16
`
`song list -- you mean would two different people receive the same
`
`17
`
`song list?
`
`18
`
`JUDGE WHITE: Is the song list you receive based on
`
`19
`
`your selections?
`
`20
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Yes, it is, and that's a big issue here
`
`21
`
`where we have disagreement, and that's why I'm going through this in
`
`22
`
`some detail with some more discussion. So, a song list comes back
`
`23
`
`and the issue Patent Owner believes that the song list is a catalog of
`
`24
`
`all the songs that the user has rights to, not just the selected category.
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00597
`Patent No. 8,230,099
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So, with the confirmed current song list, the user is now
`
`permitted to select a track from those available in a selection menu.
`
`So, that is you get an updated song list back, and you select at that
`
`point ultimately a track for playing, and it may be that if you selected
`
`an artist at the top, it may select more than one track, but you make
`
`your selection after you get the updated song list back.
`
`And in response to that, the DUL server returns the
`
`network address for the requested song. And the playback unit is
`
`ready to receive audio from the network. So, the playback unit uses
`
`10
`
`that network address to go out and fetch the song.
`
`11
`
`So, we have a big issue, Mr. Zatkovich indicates at slide
`
`12
`
`36, takes the position that it's the song list is the entire song list
`
`13
`
`available to the user, the whole catalog that the user has rights to a
`
`14
`
`thousand songs, that a thousand songs song list is checked and sent
`
`15
`
`back.
`
`16
`
`The discussion of figure 3, figure 3 and its corresponding
`
`17
`
`portion of the specification is very clear that that's not the case. The
`
`18
`
`selection of category is done before any checking is done. The Patent
`
`19
`
`Owner had argued that synchronization occurs at step 301, power on,
`
`20
`
`that is very clear that that synchronization occurs later after selection
`
`21
`
`of the category at step 302.
`
`22
`
`And the full description corresponding to figure 3 is quite
`
`23
`
`clear on that. And if there is any question about that, then Berman
`
`24
`
`claim 15, which was part of the original filing, so is equally prior art,
`
`25
`
`it has a direct recitation shown in slide 41, selecting an available
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00597
`Patent No. 8,230,099
`
`music category. So, that clearly corresponds to the step 302. Sending
`
`a current song list version for the selected music category to a network
`
`server and receiving an updated song list.
`
`So, it's starkly apparent that what's being updated here
`
`and sent back is the song list for the selected category. And that's
`
`essentially the argument that the Patent Owner has is that Berman
`
`doesn't have a playlist, it doesn't have a playlist until songs get
`
`selected after it gets -- the major overall song list gets received, but
`
`that's not the case. The song list is the selected category, and it's
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`received in Berman, the information enabling the device to obtain the
`
`11
`
`songs is received, that's the network addresses that are returned by the
`
`12
`
`DUL server, and then those network addresses are used to obtain the
`
`13
`
`songs.
`
`14
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Counsel, I'm looking at I guess
`
`15
`
`your slide 31, and that flow chart there. And moving down to step
`
`16
`
`310, you might have repeated it on another slide. Why is the playlist
`
`17
`
`not created until the user selects the artist and song titles to be played?
`
`18
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Because the playlist is merely the list
`
`19
`
`that you have to select from. What you choose to play from that
`
`20
`
`playlist is a separate thing. And that's exactly the same as the '099 and
`
`21
`
`'873 patents, where you get a list and it says you pick one or more.
`
`22
`
`The only use of a -- or selecting the whole list for playing is not the
`
`23
`
`only use of a playlist.
`
`24
`
`You have a playlist, and, in fact, in Berman, in the
`
`25
`
`institution decision, even holds the total song list, even if that's the
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00597
`Patent No. 8,230,099
`
`case, that's a playlist. It's merely something that is the listing that is
`
`then selected from, and this idea that it's restricted to only playing
`
`every song in a list, in a sequence, is simply not correct. Especially
`
`when even the Patent Owner is trying to say, well, it can be played in
`
`a sequence, or it could be played in random order, which is a totally
`
`different sequence.
`
`It's up to the device as to how that is used, and many of
`
`these devices, including the Microsoft, you could play one, that's a
`
`very normal -- you're organized by lists, but you go down and you
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`want to play your favorite song at that point, or your one symphony.
`
`11
`
`So, the listing -- the selection of what you play is not the
`
`12
`
`first time that a playlist is being created. That's an unduly narrow
`
`13
`
`view of what a playlist is in a general operation.
`
`14
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: I'm not quite sure -- I'm not
`
`15
`
`quite sure you got to the point that I was trying to get to.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Okay.
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: And you may have, but I'm still
`
`18
`
`not sure, and when I read the transcript, I'll find out, but my question
`
`19
`
`is this: We recognize in that flow chart that the user will select an
`
`20
`
`artist, let's say.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Yes.
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: And what's going to come back
`
`23
`
`then is a list of songs by a particular artist.
`
`24
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: That's correct.
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00597
`Patent No. 8,230,099
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: And then the user selects the
`
`song title that he wants to play, okay? So, my understanding is that
`
`the list that comes back with the -- of all the songs that are available
`
`from that artist, constitutes a playlist, at least as you would construe
`
`it?
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Yes.
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: And I think the question is, why
`
`is it not -- why is it that it doesn't become a playlist until the user
`
`selects what it is that's going to be played?
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Can you repeat -- why is it --
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Sure. Step 310 is where the user
`
`12
`
`selects the artist and song title.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Yes.
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: So, he's already selected the
`
`15
`
`artist, because that's how it came down. So, the only thing left for the
`
`16
`
`user to select is the song title.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Right.
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: When the user selects song 1
`
`19
`
`and then the user selects song 3 and then the user selects song 5, why
`
`20
`
`is that not the point at which the playlist is formed?
`
`21
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Because the playlist is there already
`
`22
`
`created. And the user is determining what he or she wants to do with
`
`23
`
`that playlist.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE CHEN: So, where in figure 3 is the playlist?
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Where in figure 3? It's the --
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00597
`Patent No. 8,230,099
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: This is figure 3 of Berman we're
`
`talking about.
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: It's the user selects artist, title, album,
`
`genre. So, an artist would be a playlist for the songs for that artist.
`
`And the very normal thing is you can select at the higher level, so if
`
`you just select the artist, you may play all the songs of an artist, you
`
`can go and select an individual song. So, they've been grouped
`
`according to subdivisions, either done by the service, done by the user
`
`themselves. So, playlist, often there's user favorites playlist that they
`
`10
`
`set up themselves, but that's not the only form of playlist. I mean, an
`
`11
`
`album is a playlist as well.
`
`12
`
`JUDGE CHEN: So, the playlist exists at step 302, you're
`
`13
`
`saying?
`
`14
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: The playlist is in the device, and the
`
`15
`
`user selects. So, the user is presented with a choice of various things,
`
`16
`
`artist, title, album. And numerous ones of those are playlists.
`
`17
`
`Because they're collection -- they're listings of music. And when that
`
`18
`
`selection is made, then the song list is -- that selected list is sent up
`
`19
`
`and checked by the DUL server, to see if it's up to date.
`
`20
`
`So, the playlist is a list that's related, associated in some
`
`21
`
`way, and what the user does with that playlist has many options, and
`
`22
`
`that's indicated in the Microsoft materials, indicated in the '873 and
`
`23
`
`'099 patents concretely, that you only select one, or one or more. It
`
`24
`
`never says you selected the whole list and play that. That can be an
`
`25
`
`option of selecting the whole list, but there are many other options
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00597
`Patent No. 8,230,099
`
`available. It could be that you just want to narrow down to one song
`
`and listen to that song.
`
`JUDGE WHITE: So, counsel, the user selection, that
`
`occurs on the handheld device itself, the playback device?
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: Well, in this case, on Berman, it can
`
`be either at the panel or a handheld device. This -- these two patents
`
`don't relate to the handheld device, this is just the network playing.
`
`But yes, it's -- the selection is made by the user in two steps, at least.
`
`Select the list, category that you want to listen to, and then when you
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`get that category displayed to you, you have choices to choose from.
`
`11
`
`So, that's going, again, to slide 41, claim 15, that's what it
`
`12
`
`says. First you select a category, so that could be artist. And you
`
`13
`
`send that current song list version for the selected category to the
`
`14
`
`server, to update that and make sure that category is updated. The
`
`15
`
`remainder of the claim, which we haven't included here, is on the
`
`16
`
`selection of an item, after you have that list, you select an item or you
`
`17
`
`can select more.
`
`18
`
`Berman allows you to select plural items or single items,
`
`19
`
`and it has buffering operations to keep those items in a list. In fact, it
`
`20
`
`has buffering for up to 100 songs.
`
`21
`
`JUDGE WHITE: So, can you show me where you
`
`22
`
`believe it's taught the idea of receiving this playlist, if the playlist is
`
`23
`
`created on the handheld, when does the handheld actually receive?
`
`24
`
`MR. FEHRMAN: It receives the updated playlist from
`
`25
`
`the DUL server after the server has checked. So, if there's nothing
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00597
`Patent No. 8,230,099
`
`new, it doesn't receive any new playlist, but if there's a new -- if there
`
`is new material added to the playlist, it then sends down an updated
`
`playlist so the player receives that updated playlist from the DUL
`
`server. And that's step 306. If I'm reading correctly -- 308.
`
`New song -- so slide 33, new song list is available and
`
`the server sends back an updated song list. And that's receiving a
`
`playlist assigned to an electronic device, identifying plurality of
`
`songs, and wherein the songs are not stored on the device and that's
`
`why it has the URLs to be able to go get th
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
