IPR2013-00598 /U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`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. IPR2013-00598
`
`U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF GARETH LOY, D.M.A.
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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. IPR2013-00598
`
`U.S. PATENT 8,214,873
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF GARETH LOY, D.M.A.
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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-
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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-
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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-
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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-
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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-
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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-
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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-
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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-
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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-
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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-
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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-
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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-
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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-
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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-
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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-
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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-
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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-
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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-
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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-
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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-
`
`BHM Ex. 2006 (previously filed in IPR2013-00598 as Ex. 2011)
`
`
`
`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 serve
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
