`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICA
`
`YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICA
`
`PETITIONER
`
`PETITIONER
`
`V.
`
`v.
`
`BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC
`BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`___________________
`
`CASE NO. IPR2013-00598
`
`CASE NO. IPR20 1 3-005 98
`
`U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`US. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF GARETH LOY, D.M.A.
`DECLARATION OF GARETH LOY, D.M.A.
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 1
`
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................ 5
`
`III. BACKGROUND OF THE PROCEEDING ................................................... 8
`
`IV. DEFINITION OF THE PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART ......................... 9
`
`V.
`
`THE STATE OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................ 10
`
`VI. THE ‘873 PATENT ...................................................................................... 16
`
`VII. OPINION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERM
`“PLAYLIST” OF THE ‘873 PATENT ........................................................ 22
`
`VIII. THE PRIOR ART OF THE INSTITUTED GROUNDS ............................. 26
`A. United States Patent Application 2002/0087996 to Bi ...................... 26
`B.
`United States Patent 6,622,018 to Erekson ........................................ 35
`C.
`United States Patent Application 2003/0045955 to Janik .................. 42
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`IX. THE PRIOR ART COMBINATIONS DO NOT RENDER THE ‘873
`CLAIMS OBVIOUS .................................................................................... 43
`A.
`There Is No Motivation To Combine Bi and Erekson, and Bi,
`Erekson and Janik ............................................................................... 44
`The Combination Of Bi In View Of Erekson Would Yield an
`Inoperable System, and, Therefore Does Not Render the ‘873
`Patent Obvious ................................................................................... 49
`The Combination of Bi and Erekson Fails To Disclose Material
`Limitations of the ‘873 Patent Claims ............................................... 62
`The Combination of Bi, Erekson and Janik Does Not Render
`Claims 13 and 42 Obvious ................................................................. 68
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Patent Owner, Black Hills Media,
`
`LLC (“Patentee”) to provide opinions in connection with Inter Partes Review No.
`
`IPR2013-00598 of U.S. Patent No. 8,214,873 to Martin Weel (Ex. 1001, “the ‘873
`
`patent”). Specifically, I have been asked to render an opinion of whether the
`
`grounds on which a trial was instituted in this proceeding render the claims at issue
`
`invalid. A current copy of my curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`2.
`
`I am the President of Gareth, Inc., which provides software
`
`engineering, consulting, and litigation support to high-technology companies
`
`internationally. Gareth Inc. provides research and development services including
`
`product development, coding and documentation. Gareth Inc. also provides a wide
`
`variety of software engineering services including embedded systems, real-time
`
`systems, operating systems support and development, file systems, compilers,
`
`parallel processing systems, and digital signal processing (DSP) systems.
`
`3.
`
`Gareth Inc. has prepared and provided compilers, interpreters and
`
`assemblers, enterprise software systems, chip architectures, software architectures,
`
`realtime operating systems, home entertainment systems, embedded systems,
`
`instruction set architectures, datasheets, databooks, user guides, and custom
`
`automated documentation systems. Technology clients have included Infineon,
`
`Philips Semiconductor, Trimedia Technologies, Equator Technologies, Pixim, Inc.,
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`Palm, Inc., Sonic Solutions, Sony Corporation of America, Chromatic Research,
`
`Raza Microelectronics, Cradle Technologies, Siemens Microelectronics, Zoran
`
`Corporation, Dolby Laboratories, and C-Cube Microsystems.
`
`4.
`
`I have over 37 years of academic and professional experience in
`
`computer science, software development, embedded systems, networking,
`
`enterprise software systems, digital audio signal processing, and music technology.
`
`I received my doctorate from Stanford University in 1980, where I studied under
`
`John Chowning at the Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics,
`
`which was a center within the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory directed
`
`by John McCarthy at the time.
`
`5.
`
`I was an early Apple Computer employee, having been hired there in
`
`1979 full time while still in graduate school. I worked for Jef Raskin who reported
`
`directly to Steve Jobs, founder and CEO of Apple Computer. I left Apple in 1980
`
`to teach at UCSD where I taught, for a decade, graduate and undergraduate courses
`
`in computer science and digital audio, and cofounded the Computer Audio
`
`Research Laboratory there.
`
`6.
`
`I have published widely in various peer-reviewed journals, and have
`
`authored three books with the MIT Press, including Musimathics, a two-volume
`
`introduction and reference to the mathematics of music.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`7.
`
`I have been a Software Architect for multiple consumer and
`
`professional products for large international electronics companies and have
`
`sustained a long and successful career at the cutting edge of software development
`
`and multimedia computing.
`
`8.
`
`I am experienced in a variety of computer science domains, ranging
`
`from embedded systems, digital home entertainment systems, graphical user
`
`interfaces, real-time operating systems, parallel processing systems, signal
`
`processing computers, device drivers, and software for film, music, and audio. I
`
`have extensive experience in use of multiprocessor/multicore architectures to solve
`
`problems in digital audio signal processing. I have also provided expertise in
`
`compiler design, file systems, operating systems, handheld networked Personal
`
`Information Management (PIM) devices, network audio streaming systems,
`
`wireless remote control systems, digital loudspeaker systems, digital home
`
`entertainment systems, enterprise email systems, software for factory automation
`
`systems, interactive databases, enterprise software for managing of music libraries,
`
`MPEG audio compression, on-line gaming, composition systems, digital camera
`
`hardware and software, digital audio hardware and software technologies, and
`
`more.
`
`9.
`
`I also have over seventeen years of experience as an expert witness on
`
`numerous cases. Most recently, I testified at an International Trade Commission
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-882 hearing involving the Weel ‘873 and ‘099 patents. I
`
`have also testified before a jury under oath, have provided Markman claim
`
`construction testimony, and have presented exhibits and Markman tutorials in
`
`federal court in trademark infringement, inequitable conduct, and patent
`
`technology litigation. I have been retained as an expert witness in such areas as
`
`software for handheld networked Personal Information Management (PIM)
`
`devices, digital music player software, enterprise email systems, software for
`
`factory automation systems, digital camera hardware and software, internet
`
`customer tracking systems, SAP billing systems, interactive databases, software for
`
`management of music libraries, Digital Audio Recording Devices (DARD), MPEG
`
`audio compression, on-line gaming, human interface design, music composition
`
`systems, MIDI systems, network audio streaming systems, rendering of 3D digital
`
`audio, and digital audio hardware and software technologies.
`
`10.
`
`In connection with forming my opinions, I reviewed the documents
`
`listed in Exhibit B. Particularly, I analyzed the ‘873 patent and the art on which
`
`the trial was instituted. I also reviewed the September 19, 2013, Declaration of V.
`
`Michael Bove, Jr. (“Bove Declaration”) and the Institution Decision dated March
`
`20, 2013 (“the Institution Decision”) as they relate to the grounds instituted by the
`
`Board. In addition, I also attended Dr. Bove’s May 29, 2014, deposition. My
`
`opinions are set forth below. I make these statements based upon facts and matters
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`within my own knowledge or on information provided to me by others. All such
`
`facts and matters are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
`
`II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`I understand from counsel that in the inter partes review proceeding,
`11.
`
`such as this one, the claims of a patent are construed from the perspective of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention and are given their
`
`broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.
`
`12.
`
`I understand that the ‘873 patent stems from an application filed on
`
`May 5, 2004. Therefore, the relevant time for both claim construction and any
`
`invalidity analysis is May 5, 2004. Based on my education, qualifications and
`
`experience, I believe that I am qualified to provide opinions about how one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in May 2004 would have understood the prior art and the
`
`‘873 patent.
`
`13.
`
`It is my understanding that an invention is unpatentable if the
`
`differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art. I further understand that obviousness is
`
`determined by evaluating: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claim, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness. To establish
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`obviousness based on a combination of the elements disclosed in the prior art, it is
`
`my understanding that a petitioner must identify a specific combination that
`
`teaches all limitations and establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to make that
`
`combination.
`
`14. To guard against hindsight and an unwarranted finding of
`
`obviousness, I understand that an important component of any obviousness inquiry
`
`is whether the petitioner has identified any teaching, suggestion or motivation that
`
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed
`
`combination and have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. I
`
`understand that this test should not be rigidly applied, but can be an important tool
`
`to avoid the use of hindsight in the determination of obviousness.
`
`15.
`
`I further understand that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation may
`
`be found explicitly or implicitly: (1) in the prior art; (2) in the knowledge of those
`
`of ordinary skill in the art that certain references, or disclosures in those references,
`
`are of special interest or importance in the field; or (3) from the nature of the
`
`problem to be solved. Additionally, I understand that the legal determination of
`
`the motivation to combine references allows recourse to logic, judgment, and
`
`common sense. In order to resist the temptation to read into prior art the teachings
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`of the invention in issue, however, it should be apparent that the expert is not
`
`conflating “common sense” and what appears obvious in hindsight.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that if the teachings of a prior art reference would lead a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art to make a modification that would render another
`
`prior art device inoperable, then such a modification would generally not be
`
`obvious. I also understand that if a proposed modification would render the prior
`
`art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is
`
`no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that it is improper to combine references where the
`
`references teach away from their combination. I understand that a reference may
`
`be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, upon
`
`reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
`
`reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by
`
`the applicant. In general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of
`
`development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive
`
`of the result sought by the patentee. I understand that a reference teaches away, for
`
`example, if (1) the combination would produce a seemingly inoperative device, or
`
`(2) the references leave the impression that the product would not have the
`
`property sought by the patentee. I also understand, however, that a reference does
`
`not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation
`
`into the invention claimed. Finally, I understand that dependent claims contain all
`
`of the limitations of the claims from which they depend.
`
`III. BACKGROUND OF THE PROCEEDING
`I understand that Yamaha Corporation of America (“Petitioner”) filed
`18.
`
`a petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15-31, 33-42, and
`
`44-46 of the 873 patent. I understand that the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (the
`
`“Board”) instituted this proceeding on two grounds of obviousness as indicated in
`
`the table below.
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Bi and Erekson
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1, 2, 6-12, 15-31, 35-41, and 44-46
`
`Bi, Erekson, and Janik
`‘955
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`13 and 42
`
`
`
`19.
`
`I also understand that Petitioner submitted proposed constructions for
`
`four claim terms: “identifier,” “directing the second device to receive a media
`
`item,” “download”, and “stream.” Pet. at 6-9. The Patent Owner responded to
`
`Petitioner’s proposed constructions and proposed alternative constructions for the
`
`terms. Prelim. Resp. at 8-12.
`
`20.
`
`I further understand that the Board did not adopt the claim
`
`constructions as proposed by Petitioner and Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Bove, or as
`
`proposed by the Patentee in its preliminary response. Instead, the Board
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`determined that “identifier” and “directing the second device to receive a media
`
`item” are apparent in the context of the claims, and that “download” and “stream”
`
`have well-established ordinary meanings. The Board decided that these claim
`
`terms, and all other terms in the challenged claims, are to be given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning. Inst. Decision at 9-10.
`
`IV. DEFINITION OF THE PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART
`I understand that the Patentee proposed a definition of a person of
`21.
`
`ordinary skill in the art as having a bachelor’s degree in computer science or
`
`electrical engineering and one year of practical experience with networked media.
`
`I also understand that the Petitioner, on the other hand, proposed that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer
`
`science or electrical engineering and at least one year of practical experience. It is
`
`my opinion that the Petitioner’s definition is not correct because it is open-ended
`
`and overly expansive, and would include persons who are over qualified to be
`
`considered to have “ordinary skill in the art.” The Patentee’s definition, on the
`
`other hand, is closed-ended and more accurately reflects the qualifications and
`
`experience that a typical person of skill in the art would have had in 2004.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`V. THE STATE OF THE PRIOR ART
`I understand that the invalidity analysis starts at the relevant date of
`22.
`
`the technology at issue. As stated above, the relevant date for purposes of the ‘873
`
`patent is the filing date of the earliest priority application, which is May 5, 2004.
`
`23. The ‘873 patent is generally directed to accessing a playlist by a first
`
`device, for example, from a central server, and directing from the first device a
`
`second device to play selected media items off of the playlist.
`
`24.
`
`In 2004, the primary mode of consumer digital audio media
`
`distribution was by compact discs (“CDs”), as well as by digital video disks
`
`(“DVDs”) for digital video media. (Bove Tr., Ex. 2012 at 120:5-121:19) In the
`
`early 2000’s, the availability of technology that allowed for compression of digital
`
`music and video files, for example, MPEG technology, such as MP3 for
`
`compression of audio files, began to allow convenient storage of multiple media
`
`files on a hard drive of a personal computer. Media compression provided by, for
`
`example, MPEG and MP3 standards allowed the data load on networks, storage
`
`systems, and microprocessors to be accommodated, enabling the delivery of audio
`
`and video media across networks to personal computers. Users could then
`
`download media from personal computers to handheld media players such as MP3
`
`players. The media players could then be detached and carried portably, typically
`
`playing music via headphones.
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`25. At the time of invention of the ‘873 patent, the ability of consumers to
`
`share media files compressed via MP3 compression technology was being
`
`challenged by copyright holders. Copyright owners were concerned that, because
`
`digital media did not degrade on being copied the way analog media previously
`
`had, that copyright protections were being undermined by Internet media sharing
`
`services such as Napster. These legal battles discouraged consumer adoption of
`
`networked digital media generally, and discouraged persons of ordinary skill in the
`
`art from developing these technologies.
`
`(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc. (site
`
`last visited on 6/6/2014); Ex. M1, A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. –
`
`Wikipedia.pdf, see especially the discussion of “Criticism and Impact”)
`
`26. Nonetheless, since the early 2000’s, advances in networking speed
`
`made file sharing more feasible. With regard to audio files, MP3 technology was
`
`utilized, for example, to copy media from a CD (i.e., “to rip the CD”) and store the
`
`media on a computer for later playback by the computer that was equipped with a
`
`sound card. For example, the Windows Media Player application available from
`
`Microsoft in 2004 could rip CDs from the CD-ROM drive of a personal computer.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. C, “Windows Media Player 9 Series, Copying music from CDs, ©
`
`
`1 Ex. A-N are the exhibits referenced in and appended to this Declaration of
`Gareth Loy, D.M.A.
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`2000-2002 Microsoft Corporation”) MP3 technology also facilitated downloading
`
`of media from servers on the Internet onto a computer, although the download
`
`speed was limited by network bandwidth available in those times.
`
`27. Though the MP3 standard was published in 1983, it was not until the
`
`early 2000’s that MP3 began to be widely used by consumers. (Bove Tr., Ex. 2012
`
`at 120:21-24) For example, Napster, an independent peer-to-peer file sharing
`
`service that operated between June 1999 and July 2001, allowed users to easily
`
`share their MP3 files. Portable MP3 players began to be available in the late
`
`1990’s and early 2000’s. For example, the iPod from Apple computer was
`
`released on October 23, 2001.
`
`(http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/instant-expert-a-
`brief-history-of-ipod/#2004 (site last visited on 6/6/2014); Ex. E, “A Brief
`
`History of iPod.pdf,” see, e.g., p. 1 “Key Milestones in the Life of the iPod 2001”).
`
`MP3 media ripped from a CD or purchased online could be stored on a computer,
`
`and from there could be downloaded onto a portable MP3 player such as the iPod.
`
`These portable devices depended upon the services of a general-purpose computer
`
`such as a desktop or laptop personal computer to provide networking, computation,
`
`input/output ports, and bulk storage. The usage paradigm for an MP3 player, for
`
`example, was to tether it via a cable to a computer, run an application on the
`
`computer such as Microsoft Windows Media Player or Apple iTunes that accessed
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`a web site containing media content, and use that application to download media
`
`and playlists to the computer, and then, from the computer, to download a subset of
`
`the media to the MP3 player (limited because of the size of then-current memory
`
`technologies), which could then be detached and used portably.
`
`28.
`
`In 2004, remote control of player devices was effected by the use of
`
`conventional optical infrared (CIR) technology, where a simple handheld device
`
`such as a dedicated remote control for a television or CD player was made up of
`
`simple circuits responsive to buttons a user would press; an infrared transmitter on
`
`the remote control would then direct a modulated infrared light beam to an infrared
`
`sensor on an associated player device communicating a simple code to control the
`
`transport mechanism or adjust the volume level of the player device.
`
`(http://www.phidgets.com/docs/IR_Remote_Control_Primer (site last visited
`
`on 6/6/2014); Ex. G, “IR Remote Control Primer - Phidgets Support.pdf”)
`
`Importantly, these simple dedicated remote controls were not provisioned to
`
`receive anything other than button presses by the person using the remote.
`
`Specifically, they were not designed to connect to the Internet, display a device
`
`identifier, allow a user to select a displayed device, receive and display a playlist or
`
`a list of playlists, receive a media item, play a media item over speakers on the
`
`remote, and allow the user to direct the selected device to play the selected media
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`item by retrieving that item from a content server such that no user input was
`
`required at the player device.
`
`29. CIR technology, introduced, as Dr. Bove points out (Bove Decl., ¶14)
`
`in the 1980’s, was only designed for unidirectional transmission of individual low-
`
`bandwidth control codes from a handheld remote control to a consumer electronics
`
`device such as a TV or CD player. (http://www.howstuffworks.com/inside-
`rc.htm/printable (site last visited on 6/6/14); Ex. H, “HowStuffWorks Inside a
`
`TV Remote Control.pdf”) CIR remote controls are still ubiquitous even today
`
`because of their simplicity and low cost, and because the typical usage paradigm of
`
`most media players is that the user must be in line-of-sight with (typically in the
`
`same room as) the controlled system. Optical technologies such as IrDA (Infrared
`
`Data Association) have been developed to improve data throughput and reliability
`
`(e.g., for communications between a personal computer and an IrDA mouse or
`
`keyboard), but IrDA has even shorter range than standard CIR systems (IrDA
`
`range is one meter) and are subject to the same line-of-sight restrictions as CIR
`
`devices. (http://www.irda.org (site last visited on 6/6/2014); Ex. I, “Welcome to
`IrDA.pdf”; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_Data_Association (site last
`
`visited on 6/6/2014); Ex. J, “Infrared Data Association - Wikipedia, the free
`
`encyclopedia.pdf”)
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`30. Although in 2004, a handful of networked and cellular-enabled
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`portable devices with general purpose processors such as the Pocket PC
`
`Ex. K, “Pocket PC 2002 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.pdf”) and the
`
`(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_PC_2002 (site last visited on 6/6/2014);
`Smartphone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone (site last visited on
`
`6/6/2014); Ex. L, “Smartphone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.pdf”) were
`
`available, in the time frame of the ‘873 patent, wireless handheld remote control
`
`systems did not allow a mobile device to display a device identifier, allow a user to
`
`select a displayed device, receive and display a playlist, and allow the user to direct
`
`the selected device to play the selected media item by retrieving that item from a
`
`content server, or perform other capabilities of the Weel ‘873 remote. These
`
`capabilities would eventually evolve in subsequent years as the utility of such
`
`advanced mobile devices was further developed.
`
`31.
`
`Indeed, Dr. Bove testified that he was not aware of anyone in 2004
`
`selling a PDA (e.g., a pocket PC) that would be able to control a playback device
`
`to play a media item obtained from a content server. (Bove Tr., Ex. 2012, at
`
`129:7-130:1. Dr. Bove was also not aware of any infrared remote (CIR) controls
`
`in 2004 that had bidirectional communication with player devices. (Bove Tr., Ex.
`
`2012, at 130:7-12).
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`VI. THE ‘873 PATENT
`In comparison to the prior art systems described above as well as
`32.
`
`those brought forward by Petitioner, Weel’s inventions, as described in the ‘873
`
`patent, dramatically changed the way users control, direct, and experience media.
`
`For example, with Weel’s system, one could receive a playlist on a wireless
`
`handheld remote control directly from a playlist server via a network (Fig. 1; Bove
`
`Tr. Ex. 2012, at 138:9-17; 145:22-146:4; 163:11-164:3), and play it either directly
`
`through loudspeakers on the remote or through one’s home sound system by
`
`directing the sound system to retrieve the content from a content server (Bove Tr.
`
`Ex. 2012, at 168:9-24), and one could then carry the remote (either with the
`
`received playlist in its memory, or received again at the destination) to a friend’s
`
`house across town and direct the friend’s sound system to play the same (or other)
`
`content from the same (or other) content server. There was no capability similar to
`
`this in May 2004.
`
`33. Weel further envisioned an embodiment where a user need not even
`
`be within miles of the player device in order to control it if the remote control were
`
`a cell phone. (‘873 at 14:25-48 and Fig. 8) In this way, the user could, for
`
`example, control playback on any system to which the user had access from any
`
`location reachable by cell phone service by utilizing a server to bridge between the
`
`cell phone network and the player system’s network (‘873 at 14:25-48 and Fig. 8).
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`For example, the user could control his/her home system or the distant friend’s
`
`system, or any other to which he/she had access, from a remote third location such
`
`as an office or a car or a mountain top, so long as there is cellular service, and the
`
`cellular remote user’s credentials allow access to the players. Weel’s invention
`
`also provides lengthy disclosure of device discovery, user ID, and password
`
`protection that would be appropriate for such a powerful system. (‘873 at 13:34-
`
`15:5) Thus, Weel invented a digital entertainment network that is “a fully
`
`integrated plug and play technology platform that delivers secure anytime,
`
`anywhere, on-demand multimedia content for digital home systems.” (‘873 at
`
`7:12-15) There was no capability similar to this in May 2004.
`
`34.
`
`Integral to Weel’s entertainment network is an independent, adaptable
`
`remote control that could be used with various player devices to play various,
`
`specified media content. For example, a remote control of Weel could be used in
`
`different locations with different player devices via a network to receive playlists,
`
`select media items for playback, receive media from a content server, and play the
`
`media on the player device that the user selected. The remote control “controls a
`
`plurality of second devices, such as a television, a DVD player, and a stereo
`
`system.” (‘873 at 9:34-36; Bove Tr. Ex. 2012, at 172:9-14, Petitioner’s expert Dr.
`
`Bove agreeing that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the first
`
`device in the ‘873 patent directs the second device to play a selected media item.)
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`35. Furthermore, Weel’s invention solved the problem of the prior art
`
`where users had “little or no control over which music selections are played.”
`
`(‘873 at 2:37-43)
`
`36. Weel replaced prior art conventional content agnostic remotes (which
`
`were limited to basic operations such as selecting a previous track or next track,
`
`without specifying which particular media is referenced) with an intelligent
`
`networked remote that was capable of displaying and receiving user input with
`
`respect to player device selection as well as media item selection, and directing the
`
`player device to receive a media item identified from a content server (e.g., the
`
`Internet). Ways in which Weel’s wireless handheld remote control was uniquely
`
`forward-looking additionally include at least the following features: “playlists can
`
`be requested by the remote control and downloaded from the playlist server via the
`
`Internet” (‘873 at 15:32); “songs may be downloaded to the remote control” (‘873
`
`at 15:34; Bove Tr., Ex. 2012, at 165:24-166:4); “songs may be played on the
`
`remote control” (‘873 at 15:35; Bove Tr., Ex. 2012, at 168:9-24); and “listening
`
`may be via one or more speakers built into the remote control” (‘873 at 15:41;
`
`Bove Tr., Ex. 2012, at 168:9-24). There was no capability similar to this in May
`
`2004.
`
`37. Weel’s invention provides for maximal efficiency and power in user
`
`experience and control of media content. It has revolutionized the user’s ability to
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`use and interact with the media by enabling the user to control the device on which
`
`to play the media and to select a specific media item to be played from a playlist.
`
`38. Weel gave users the power to select player devices, select playlists,
`
`and select specific media items from those playlists providing “secure anytime,
`
`anywhere, on-demand multimedia content for digital home systems.” (‘873 at
`
`15:32-41) The result is a dramatic increase in the power provided to users to
`
`control their media experience.
`
`
`39. As shown in Fig. 1 of the ‘873 patent, the architecture of the Weel
`
`inventions describes a first device 13 which acts as a controller (‘873 at 8:57-58;
`
`9:27-29), a second device 14 which typically acts as a player device (‘873 at 9:29-
`
`32), which the first device can select with a user first input (‘873 at 11:60-67), and
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`a playlist server/content server device which is in bi-directional communication
`
`with the Internet 11 as well as with the first device 13 and second device 14 (‘873
`
`at 8:65-9:7). According to one embodiment of the invention, the first device 13 is
`
`capable of directing the second device 14 to communicate with the content server
`
`via the Internet to receive media from the content server for playback. (‘873 at
`
`Fig. 4, 4:46-60; 11:60-12:23)
`
`40. Thus, the ‘873 patent provides for the interoperability of three classes
`
`of devices: the controller device (first device 13), player device (second device 14),
`
`and content server 10 (via the Internet 11), such that any controller device could
`
`interact with any playback device, and both of which have independent capability
`
`to contact any content provider to receive media, thereby maximizing the
`
`flexibility of the system to respond to the user’s media needs as well as the user’s
`
`location.
`
`41. Figure 1 and the specification of the ‘873 patent illustrate and
`
`describe, respectively, all three classes of devices – the controller (first device 13),
`
`player (second device 14), and content server 10 (content provider, e.g., via the
`
`Internet 11) – as internet connected. (‘873 at 8:51-57, 8:65-9:3) Moreover, the
`
`controller (first device 13) and