Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,359,007
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`§ Attorney Docket No.:
`United States Patent No.: 8,359,007
`§
`110797-0004-654
`Inventors: Russell W. White,
`§ Customer No. 28120
`Kevin R. Imes
`Formerly Application No.: 13/052,559 § Petitioners:
`Issue Date: January 22, 2013
`§
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.;
`Filing Date: March 21, 2011
`§
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.;
`Priority Date: March 28, 2000
`§
`Samsung Telecommunications America,
`§
`LLC;
`§
`LG Electronics, Inc.;
`§
`LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.;
`§
`LG Electronics Mobilecomm USA, Inc.;
`§ HTC Corp.;
`§ HTC America, Inc.
`
`Former Group Art Unit: 2646
`Former Examiner: Erika Washington
`
`
`
`
`For: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR COMMUNICATING MEDIA CENTER
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,359,007
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,359,007
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`IV.
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................ v
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................... 5
`III. PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING ...................................................................... 8
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ..................................... 8
`B.
`Claims and Statutory Grounds Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.22 and
`§§ 42.104(b) ......................................................................................................... 8
`SUMMARY OF THE ‘007 PATENT ....................................................................... 9
`A. Overview of the ‘007 Patent ............................................................................ 9
`B.
`‘007 Patent Prosecution History .................................................................... 11
`C.
`‘390 Parent Patent Prosecution History ....................................................... 13
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT
`PETITIONERS WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE ‘007 PATENT .................................................................. 14
`A.
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ................................. 15
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art and State of the Art .............................. 16
`C. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, and 6-8 Are Anticipated by Hitson Under
`35 U.S.C. § 102
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 10 Are Obvious Over Hitson
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10 Are Obvious Over Hitson in
`View of Fuller Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`Ground 4: Claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10 Are Obvious Over Hitson in
`View of Fuller and Goldszmidt Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................ 17
`D. Ground 5: Claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10 Are Obvious Over
`Goldszmidt in View of Nokia Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`Ground 6: Claim 8 Is Obvious Over Goldszmidt in View of
`Nokia and Ausems Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................. 40
`VI. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 59
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,359,007
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.,
`1:12-cv-557 (E.D. Tex., filed Nov. 20, 2012) .................................................................. 5
`
`In re Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC,
`--- Fed.Appx. ----, 2014 WL 67930 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2014) .......................................... 1
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................ 15
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ........................................................................................................... 17
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 101 ..................................................................................................................................... 12
`§ 102 ............................................................................................................................. passim
`§ 103 ............................................................................................................................. passim
`§ 112 ............................................................................................................................. passim
`§ 311 ....................................................................................................................................... 1
`§ 312 ....................................................................................................................................... 1
`§ 313 ....................................................................................................................................... 1
`§ 314 ................................................................................................................................ 1, 14
`§ 315 ....................................................................................................................................... 1
`§ 316 ....................................................................................................................................... 1
`§ 317 ....................................................................................................................................... 1
`§ 318 ....................................................................................................................................... 1
`§ 319 ....................................................................................................................................... 1
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 1.33(c) ............................................................................................................................... 59
`§ 1.312 ................................................................................................................................. 12
`§ 42 ......................................................................................................................................... 1
`§ 42.8 ...................................................................................................................................... 5
`§ 42.15(a) ............................................................................................................................. 59
`§ 42.22 ................................................................................................................................... 8
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,359,007
`§ 42.100 .................................................................................................................. 15, 16, 59
`§ 42.104 .......................................................................................................................... 8, 15
`§ 42.105 ............................................................................................................................... 59
`
`MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
`
`§ 2111 .................................................................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,359,007
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1101
`Ex. 1102
`Ex. 1103
`Ex. 1104
`Ex. 1105
`
`Ex. 1106
`Ex. 1107
`Ex. 1107A
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,359,007 (“the ‘007 patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,359,007 File History
`U.S. Patent No. 7,953,390 File History
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0010759 (“Hitson”)
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/173800 (“Hitson Provisional
`Application”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,711,622 (“Fuller”)
`Declaration of Terrence Trussell
`“E-100/E-105 Getting Started with the Cassiopeia” (“Hardware
`Manual”), published by Casio Computer Co., Ltd. (“Cassiopeia
`Hardware Manual”)
`“Palm-size PC User’s Guide,” dated 1999, published by Casio
`Computer Co., Ltd. (“Cassiopeia Software Guide”)
`Certificate of Authenticity of Chari Walsh, LexisNexis with
`attachment “Casio Introduces New Color 32MB Cassiopeia E-
`105 Multimedia Palm-Size PC; Casio Offers Three Palm-Size
`PCs to Consumers,” PR Newswire, dated May 24, 1999,
`published by the PR Newswire Association, LLC (“Cassiopeia
`Article”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,195,680 (“Goldszmidt”)
`Ex. 1109
`Declaration of Harri Valio
`Ex. 1110
`Declaration of Jari Toivanen
`Ex. 1111
`Ex. 1111A User’s Manual for the Nokia 9000i Communicator, dated 1995,
`published by Nokia Mobile Phones Ltd.
`Ex. 1111B Owner’s Manual for the Nokia 9000i Communicator (“Nokia”),
`dated 1995-1997, published by Nokia Mobile Phones Ltd.
`“Nokia Unveils Worlds First All-In-One Communicator For The
`Americas,” dated September 19, 1996, published by Nokia
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,403 (“Ausems”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,928,468 (“Leermakers”)
`Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0, Network Working Group,
`T. Berners-Lee et al., November 1995, available at
`
`Ex. 1107B
`
`Ex. 1108
`
`Ex. 1112
`
`Ex. 1113
`Ex. 1114
`Ex. 1115
`
`v
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,359,007
`
`Exhibit
`
`Ex. 1116
`Ex. 1117
`
`Ex. 1118
`
`Ex. 1119
`
`Ex. 1120
`Ex. 1121
`
`Description
`http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1866 (“Hypertext Markup
`Language - 2.0 Specification”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,081,815 (“Spitznagel”)
`Universal Serial Bus Specification, Revision 1.1, September 23, 1998,
`Compaq Computer Corp., Intel Corp., Microsoft Corp., and
`NEC Corp.
`Archived webpage of http://usb.org/developers/download.html
`accessed through the October 13, 1999 archive of
`http://web.archive.org, specifically
`https://web.archive.org/web/19991013020337/http:/usb.org/
`developers/download.html, on December 2, 2013
`Archived web page of http://usb.org/developers/docs.html
`accessed through the October 13, 1999 archive of
`http://web.archive.org, specifically,
`https://web.archive.org/web/19991013012138/http:/usb.org/
`developers/docs.html, on December 2, 2013
`Declaration of Dr. Schuyler Quackenbush
`Declaration of Carolyn Redding in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of United States Patent No. 8,359,007
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,359,007
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, Petitioners respectfully
`
`request inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,359,007 (“the
`
`‘007 patent”), issued to Russell W. White et al. and currently assigned to Affinity Labs
`
`of Texas, LLC (“Affinity”).
`
`The ‘007 patent is one of thirteen patents that cite back to an application filed
`
`on March 28, 2000.1 These patents all share a common specification and generally
`
`relate to the delivery of Internet media content, such as “songs, on-line radio stations,
`
`on-line broadcasts, [or] streaming audio,” to a portable device. The portable device
`
`may be used to play the media content and may also be connected with another
`
`electronic device, such as a portable radio or vehicle audio system, so that the audio
`
`information may be communicated to the other electronic device. There is nothing
`
`new in the claims of the ‘007 patent. In fact, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed the
`
`USPTO’s finding that the claims of a related patent in the ‘007 family—U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,486,926 (“the ‘926 patent”)—were invalid as obvious over the prior art. In re
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2014 WL 67930 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2014).
`
`As set forth in this petition, the supposed “invention” in each of claims 1, 2, 5-
`
`8, and 10 (the “Challenged Claims”) was well-known and, at a minimum, obvious
`
`1 Petitioners reserve the right to argue that the Challenged Claims of the ‘007 patent
`
`are not entitled to this priority date for failure to meet the requirements of § 112(1).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,359,007
`prior to the earliest application filing date listed on the front of the ‘007 patent (i.e.,
`
`March 28, 2000). Specifically, the Challenged Claims require the following known
`
`features: a display, a non-volatile memory, a processing device, a web browser, and
`
`instructions to direct the portable device to request a list of network addresses for a
`
`plurality of portions of an available media, and to request delivery of (a) a first portion
`
`which is delivered at a first communication rate and (b) a second portion which is
`
`delivered at a second communication rate. ‘007 claims 5, 6, 8, and 10 additionally
`
`require one or more of the following commonplace features: an e-mail client, a
`
`physical interface to transmit power and data, the ability to access the browser and
`
`choose the media without a physical keyboard or a mouse, and an audio file player.
`
`The ‘007 patent itself concedes there is nothing novel about the claimed
`
`portable device. Indeed, there were a wide variety of portable electronic devices in
`
`the prior art by March of 2000, including cellular telephones, laptops, portable MP3
`
`players, portable PDAs, and portable Internet Radios, and the ‘007 patent indicates
`
`that any of these known portable devices may be used. Ex. 1101 at 4:33-37
`
`(“Electronic devices . . . may include a network radio, a modular device, an audio
`
`system, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a cellular phone, or other electronic devices
`
`operable to receive information wirelessly.”). Consistent with the ‘007 patent’s
`
`acknowledgement that such devices were already known, the two primary references
`
`cited in this petition—Hitson (describing, inter alia, a cellular phone or portable media
`
`player) and Goldszmidt (describing, on the other hand, a portable device)—each
`
`2
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,359,007
`disclose a portable electronic device that is capable of wirelessly receiving streaming
`
`media over the Internet.
`
`Other elements of the Challenged Claims—a display, a non-volatile memory, a
`
`processing device, a web browser, an e-mail client, a physical interface to transmit
`
`power and data, the ability to access the browser and choose the media without a
`
`physical keyboard or a mouse, and an audio file player—were also routinely included
`
`in portable devices prior to March 28, 2000. In view of this, it would have been
`
`obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) to implement any of
`
`these elements on any portable device.
`
`Finally, it was also well-known in the art to request a list of network addresses
`
`for a plurality of portions of an available media, and to deliver a first portion of media
`
`at a first communication rate and to deliver a second portion of media at a second
`
`communication rate. Indeed, the requirement of delivering media at two different
`
`communication rates was a well-known and obvious feature of any system for
`
`streaming audio or video content. As explained in Hitson:
`
`User Arrives 300 can determine, through software, hardware, or by
`asking a user, a data transmission rate appropriate for a given user session, as
`illustrated by Block 310. Data transmission rate information may be stored
`for later use, as illustrated by Narrowband 320 and Broadband 330.
`
`Ex. 1104 at [0070]; see also Ex. 1105 at 22:19-23:4. Goldszmidt also discloses this
`
`advantageous ability to adapt to changing conditions:
`
`3
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,359,007
`For example, the client agent 3.5 may monitor the effective bit rate of
`the stream. If the bit rate falls below a given threshold, the connection to the
`server 3.2 can be considered to have failed.
`
`Ex. 1109 at 9:9-13.
`
`Each client agent receives the multimedia stream from a streaming
`server, performs the appropriate processing (e.g., decompression,
`scaling) on the stream and renders the multimedia output. Each client
`agent can be provided with a primary server identifier as well as a
`secondary server set identifier. The primary entry characterizes the
`primary streaming server in the set of servers the client agent is
`connecting to. The secondary entry characterizes the set containing an
`alternate server for the client agent. When a client detects a failure or overload,
`the client sends a switch request to the control server which then selects a server in the
`secondary set and redirects the client agents of the primary server to the selected
`alternate server. Thus, the client agents can continue to receive the
`multimedia streams with minimal or no interruption.
`Ex. 1109 at 3:41-56. Furthermore, Fuller, which is cited in combination with Hitson,
`
`demonstrates that the ability for a wireless client device to switch communication
`
`rates was a well-known solution for addressing constraints on bandwidth. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1106 at 10:11-14. Indeed, during prosecution of the application leading to the ‘390
`
`patent (the parent to the ‘007 patent), the Examiner concluded that it would have
`
`been obvious to transmit data at two different communication rates to a wireless
`
`portable device “to improve the performance of the data streaming.” Ex. 1103 at 575
`
`(Sept. 17, 2010 Non-Final OA at 6).
`
`4
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,359,007
`As demonstrated in this Petition, each and every element of the Challenged
`
`Claims has been disclosed in the prior art and the Challenged Claims are nothing
`
`more than a routine and predictable combination of these well-known elements.
`
`Thus, Petitioners respectfully request that the Board find that each of the Challenged
`
`Claims is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), (b)(3), & (b)(4): The Petitioners and
`
`real parties-in-interest are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, (collectively
`
`“Samsung”); LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics
`
`Mobilecomm USA, Inc., (collectively “LG”); and HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc.
`
`(collectively “HTC”) (all “Petitioners”). Lead counsel, backup counsel, and service
`
`information for each petitioner are designated in the signature block of this petition.
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Affinity is currently asserting
`
`claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10 of the ‘007 patent against Petitioners in Affinity Labs of Texas,
`
`LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., 1:12-cv-557 (E.D. Tex., filed Nov. 20, 2012),
`
`along with related U.S. Patent Nos. 7,187,947 (“the ‘947 patent”); 7,324,833 (“the ‘833
`
`patent”); 7,634,228 (“the ‘228 patent”); and 7,953,390 (“the ‘390 patent”). The case
`
`will be transferred to the Northern District of California (4:13-mc-80209) following
`
`claim construction of the ‘833 and ‘228 patents.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,359,007
`The ‘947 patent is the great-great-grandparent to the ‘007 patent and was the
`
`first patent in the ‘007 patent family to be filed. Affinity has filed a proliferation of
`
`patent applications stemming from the ‘947 patent. The applications leading to the
`
`‘833 patent, ‘228 patent, ‘926 patent, and U.S. Patent No. 7,440,772 (“the ‘772 patent”)
`
`were each filed as continuations of the application leading to the ‘947 patent. The
`
`application leading to U.S. Patent No. 7,778,595 (“the ‘595 patent”) was thereafter
`
`filed as a continuation of the application leading to the ‘833 patent. The applications
`
`leading to the ‘390 patent and U.S. Patent No. 7,970,379 were each filed thereafter as
`
`continuations of the application leading to the ‘595 patent. The applications leading
`
`to the ‘007 patent and U.S. Patent No. 8,521,140 (“the ‘140 patent”) were each filed
`
`thereafter as continuations of the application leading to the ‘390 patent. The
`
`applications leading to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,554,191 (“the ‘191 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,532,641 (“the ‘641 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 8,588,680 (“the ‘680 patent”) and
`
`pending U.S. Patent Application No. 13/854,232 were each filed thereafter as
`
`continuations of the application leading to the ‘140 patent. The following matters
`
`concern one or more of the ‘007 patent and/or patents that are related to the ‘007
`
`patent: IPR2014-00209 (inter partes review of the ‘390 patent); IPR2014-00212 (inter
`
`partes review of the ‘390 patent); Control No. 90/011,254 (ex parte reexamination of
`
`the ‘947 patent); Control No. 95/001,262 (inter partes reexamination of the ‘947 patent);
`
`Control No. 90/010,333 (ex parte reexamination of the ‘833 patent); Control No.
`
`95/001,223 (inter partes reexamination of the ‘833 patent); Control No. 95/001,264
`
`6
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,359,007
`(inter partes reexamination of the ‘833 patent); Control No. 90/011,982 (ex parte
`
`reexamination of the ‘228 patent); Control No. 95/001,281 (inter partes reexamination
`
`of the ‘228 patent); Control No. 95/001,263 (inter partes reexamination of the ‘926
`
`patent); Control No. 95/001,266 (inter partes reexamination of the ‘772 patent);
`
`Control No. 95/001,782 (inter partes reexamination of the ‘595 patent); Affinity v. Apple,
`
`Inc., 9:09-cv-47 (EDTX) & 4:09-cv-4436 (NDCA) (‘947, ‘926, & ‘772 patents); Affinity
`
`v. Dice Elecs., LLC et al., 9:08-cv-163 (EDTX) (‘833 patent); Affinity v. BMW North Am.,
`
`et al., 9:08-cv-164 (EDTX) (‘833 & ‘228 patents); Affinity v. Alpine et al., 9:08-cv-171
`
`(EDTX) (‘833 & ‘228 patents); Affinity v. Nike, Inc. et al., 2:10-cv-54 (EDTX) & 4:10-
`
`cv-5543 (NDCA) (‘225, ‘454, & ‘327 patents); Affinity v. Volkswagen Group of Am., Inc. et
`
`al., 1:11-cv-36 (EDTX) (‘833, ‘228, & ‘595 patents); Affinity v. Apple, Inc., 1:11-cv-349
`
`(EDTX) (‘228 & ‘595 patents); Affinity v. Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc., 1:12-cv-205
`
`(WDTX) (‘379 patent); Affinity v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1:12-cv-580 (EDTX) (‘833 &
`
`‘228 patents); Affinity v. General Motors Co. et al., No. 1:12-cv-582 (EDTX) (‘833 & ‘228
`
`patents); Affinity v. Blackberry Limited et al, No. 6:13-cv-362 (WDTX) (‘641 patent);
`
`Affinity v. Ford Motor Co., No. 6:13-cv-363 (WDTX) (‘191 & ‘680 patents); Affinity v.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. et al., 6:13-cv-364 (WDTX) (‘641 patent); Affinity v. Toyota Motor
`
`North Am., Inc. et al., 6:13-cv-365 (WDTX) (‘191 & ‘680 patents); Affinity v. Volvo Cars
`
`of North Am., LLC et al., 6:13-cv-366 (WDTX) (‘191 & ‘680 patents); Affinity v. Honda
`
`North Am., Inc. et al., 6:13-cv-367 (WDTX) (‘191 & ‘680 patents); Affinity v. Jaguar Land
`
`Rover North Am., LLC et al., 6:13-cv-368 (WDTX) (‘191 & ‘680 patents); Affinity v.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,359,007
`Nissan North Am., Inc. et al., 6:13-cv-369 (WDTX) (‘191 & ‘680 patents); Affinity v.
`
`General Motors LLC, 6:13-cv-370 (WDTX) (‘191 & ‘680 patents). Finally, Petitioners
`
`have concurrently filed an inter partes review petition for the ‘007 patent based on two
`
`primary references (“Treyz” and “Abecassis”) that also demonstrate the obviousness
`
`of the Challenged Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, but in the context of differently-
`
`configured portable devices. Petitioner notes that the Director, pursuant to Rule
`
`325(c), may determine at the proper time that merger of these proceedings may be
`
`appropriate.
`
`III. PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioners certify pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) that the ‘007 patent is
`
`eligible for inter partes review and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review of the ‘007 patent. Each of Petitioners were served with
`
`a complaint asserting infringement of the ‘007 patent on or after February 15, 2013,
`
`and no Petitioner, real party-in-interest, or privy of a Petitioner was served with such a
`
`complaint before that date. The Petitioners and real parties-in-interest have not
`
`initiated a civil action challenging validity of the ‘007 patent.
`
`B.
`
`Claims and Statutory Grounds Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 and §§ 42.104(b)
`
`Petitioners request inter partes review of ‘007 claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10 and assert
`
`that these claims are unpatentable based on one or more grounds under 35 U.S.C.
`
`8
`
`

`
`§§ 102 and/or 103 as set forth below.
`
` Ground 1: Hitson (Ex. 1104) anticipates ‘007 claims 1, 2, and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,359,007
`
`§ 102.
`
` Ground 2: Hitson (Ex. 1104) renders obvious ‘007 claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 10 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
` Ground 3: Hitson (Ex. 1104) in view of Fuller (Ex. 1106) renders obvious ‘007
`
`claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
` Ground 4: Hitson (Ex. 1104) in view of Fuller (Ex. 1106) and Goldszmidt (Ex.
`
`1109) renders obvious ‘007 claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
` Ground 5: Goldszmidt (Ex. 1109) in view of Nokia (Ex. 1111B) renders obvious
`
`‘007 claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
` Ground 6: Goldszmidt (Ex. 1109) in view of Nokia (Ex. 1111B) and Ausems (Ex.
`
`1113) renders obvious ‘007 claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Sections V.C-V.D below provides claim charts specifying how the cited prior
`
`art relied upon anticipates and/or renders obvious each of the Challenged Claims, as
`
`confirmed by the knowledge and understanding of a POSITA at the time of the
`
`claimed invention as evidenced in Ex. 1120, the Declaration of Dr. Schuyler
`
`Quackenbush.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ‘007 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ‘007 Patent
`The ‘007 specification generally describes a “System and Method for
`
`9
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,359,007
`Communicating Media Center” as applied to various electronic devices such as a PC,
`
`portable device, or vehicle audio system. The supposed invention of the ‘007 patent
`
`is described as allowing users to select multimedia content that is available on the
`
`Internet, such as “songs, on-line radio stations, on-line broadcasts, [or] streaming
`
`audio” and deliver that content to a PC or portable audio player. See Ex. 1101 at 2:53-
`
`64. According to the ‘007 patent, available audio content may be accessed via links in
`
`a Web browser. See, e.g., id. at 7:17-20, 9:65-10:9. Audio content may be transmitted
`
`to an electronic device via high-speed communication until enough information has
`
`been communicated and buffered into a memory. Upon communication of a certain
`
`percentage of the selected audio information, slower communication speeds may then
`
`be used to communicate additional selected audio information. Id. at 6:3-13.
`
`The Challenged Claims are directed to a system for delivering media content to
`
`a portable device over a wireless network. One aspect of the Challenged Claims is a
`
`collection of instructions that are operable to direct a device to “request a list of
`
`network addresses for a plurality of portions of an available media, to request delivery
`
`of a first portion of the available media such that the first portion is delivered at a first
`
`communication rate, and to request delivery of a second portion of the available
`
`media such that the second portion is delivered at a second communication rate that
`
`is different than the first communication rate.” Id. at claims 1, 7.
`
`As set forth in this Petition, this feature and the remaining aspects of the
`
`Challenged Claims were all already well known in the art long before the earliest
`
`10
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,359,007
`claimed priority date listed on the face of the ‘007 patent (March 28, 2000). Indeed,
`
`the specification itself makes clear that the applicants for the ‘007 patent did not
`
`purport
`
`to
`
`invent,
`
`inter
`
`alia,
`
`the
`
`following
`
`claim
`
`elements:
`
`Cellular telephone. See, e.g., Ex. 1101 at 4:33-38, 11:30-35. Display. See, e.g., id. at 9:61-
`
`10:2, 11:22-24, 11:30-35. Non-volatile memory. See, e.g., id. at 7:61-65. Processing
`
`Device. See, e.g., id. at 7:57-65. Browser. See, e.g., id. at 9:61-10:9. HTTP browser. See,
`
`e.g., id. at 4:6-14, Figure 4. Email client. See, e.g., id. at 9:35-40. Media file attachment.
`
`See, e.g., id. at 12:55-64. Non-circular physical interface. See, e.g., id. at 17:19-31, 17:48-
`
`51, Fig. 9. Audio file player. See, e.g., id. at 8:8-14, 15:20-26, 16:6-11. Computing
`
`device. See, e.g., id. at 4:33-38. Wireless receiver. See, e.g., id. at 4:39-5:3.
`
`Furthermore, a large number of prior art references were identified through
`
`submission of Information Disclosure Statements during prosecution of the ‘007
`
`patent. These prior art references disclose all of the above features or concepts as
`
`already well known in the art. See generally Ex. 1102. As detailed herein, the applicants
`
`did not invent anything beyond what was already well understood in the art at the
`
`time of their earliest claimed priority date.
`
`‘007 Patent Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The application leading to the ‘007 patent was filed on March 21, 2011 as a
`
`continuation of the application leading to the ‘390 patent (filed June 30, 2009), which
`
`is a continuation of the application leading to the ‘595 patent (filed January 16, 2008),
`
`which is a continuation of the application leading to the ‘833 patent (filed September
`
`11
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,359,007
`3, 2004), and in turn a continuation of the application leading to the ‘947 patent (filed
`
`March 28, 2000). On June 27, 2012, the Examiner issued a non-final Office Action,
`
`rejecting original prosecution claims 11 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and original
`
`prosecution claims 1-13, 18, and 20 for double patenting. See Ex. 1102 at 356 (June
`
`27, 2012 Non-Final OA at 3). Claims 14-17 and 19 were objected to as being
`
`dependent upon a rejected base claim, but were deemed allowable if rewritten in
`
`independent form. Id. at 357 (June 27, 2012 Non-Final OA at 4). The rejections of
`
`what would become the Challenged Claims—claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10—were based on
`
`obviousness-type double patenting over claims of the ‘390 patent. The Examiner
`
`stated that prosecution claims 1-11, 18, and 20 were anticipated by claim 1 of the ‘390
`
`patent because both the prosecution claims and ‘390 claim 1 “teach accessing content
`
`from a website and delivering the content at first and second data rates.” Id. at 356-57
`
`(June 27, 2012 Non-Final OA at 3-4).
`
`Applicants responded on September 25, 2012, with amendments to claims
`
`other than those challenged here, and submitted a Terminal Disclaimer to overcome
`
`the double patenting rejection of the Challenged Claims. Id. at 558-568 (Sept. 25,
`
`2012 Amend.; Terminal Disclaimer). On November 9, 2012, the Examiner issued a
`
`Notice of Allowance. Id. at 586. On November 19, 2012, Applicants filed an
`
`Amendment after Notice of Allowance under 37 C.F.R. § 1.312 to amend prosecution
`
`claim 4. Id. at 604-623 (Nov. 19, 2012 Amend.). On November 27, 2012, the
`
`Examiner entered the Amendment. Id. at 624-628 (Nov. 27, 2012 Response to
`
`12
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,359,007
`Amendment under Rule 312). The patent issued on January 22, 2013.
`
`‘390 Parent Patent Prosecution History
`
`C.
`As explained above, the Challenged Claims—claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10—were
`
`rejected during prosecution of the ‘007 patent based on obviousness-type double
`
`patenting over claim 1 of the ‘390 patent (the parent of the ‘007 patent). During
`
`prosecution of the parent ‘390 patent, Applicants stated that prosecution claims 19, 30
`
`and 37 (which issued as ‘390 claims 1, 11 and 16) “include[s] a limitation directed at
`
`switching between different communication rates during the process of receiving a
`
`piece of content (e.g., a song or a video) that is being delivered as streaming media
`
`(i.e., the delivery method is streaming media as opposed to download and play).” Ex.
`
`1103 at 562 (Aug. 4, 2010 Prelim. Amend. at 7). As support for this new limitation,
`
`Applicants cited two portions of the specification, which state:
`
`In one embodiment, the selected information may be formatted and
`transmitted to achieve a desirable transmission rate. For example,
`conventional systems may transmit information at a speed of 10 kilobits
`per second.