`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. IPR2013-00594
`U.S. Patent 8,050,652
`___________________
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH
`
`
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`3.1.
`3.2.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`6.1.
`6.2.
`6.3.
`
`6.4.
`
`INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 1
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ............................................. 2
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................ 5
`Anticipation .................................................................................................. 5
`Obviousness ................................................................................................. 6
`SUMMARY OF MY STUDY ................................................................... 10
`ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 11
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘652 PATENT ....................................................... 12
`A Network-Enabled Electronic Device ..................................................... 17
`Receiving a playlist assigned to the electronic device ............................... 18
`Identifying ones of the plurality of songs in the playlist that are not
`stored on the electronic device ................................................................... 21
`Receiving information enabling the electronic device to obtain the
`ones of the plurality of songs from a remote source and obtaining the
`songs ........................................................................................................... 22
`Personal audio network server for managing playlists and devices .......... 24
`Receiving and playing Internet radio broadcasts ....................................... 25
`Requesting supplemental information related to a song in real time
`while the song is playing ............................................................................ 26
`OPINIONS AS TO CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................... 27
`7.
`Playlist ........................................................................................................ 27
`7.1.
`7.1.1. The Media File Sharing Art Uses Playlist to Denote A List of Media
`Items Arranged To Be Played In A Sequence ........................................... 27
`
`6.5.
`6.6.
`6.7.
`
`i
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`
`7.1.2. The ‘652 Patent Uses “Playlist” Consistent with Its Meaning in the
`Media File Sharing Art .............................................................................. 35
`7.1.3. A List of URLs is Not a Playlist ................................................................ 39
`7.2.
`Receiving a Playlist “Assigned to the Electronic Device” ........................ 47
`7.3.
`“Receiving” a Playlist Assigned to the Electronic Device ........................ 50
`8.
`OPINIONS AS TO QURESHEY AND BERMAN .................................. 51
`8.1.
`Summary of Qureshey ............................................................................... 51
`8.2.
`Summary of Berman .................................................................................. 51
`8.3.
`Petitioner’s Arguments Regarding Qureshey in view of Berman ............. 58
`8.4.
`Berman does not cure the deficiencies of Qureshey .................................. 60
`8.4.1. The Song List Sent from the DUL is Not Arranged to be Played in a
`Sequence .................................................................................................... 61
`8.4.2. Neither the DUL Server Nor Audio Material Server Maintain
`Playlist Information .................................................................................... 62
`OPINIONS AS TO QURESHEY, BERMAN, AND LEEKE .................. 65
`9.
`OPINIONS AS TO WHITE ....................................................................... 68
`10.
`10.1. Summary of White ..................................................................................... 68
`10.2. Petitioner’s Arguments Regarding White .................................................. 75
`10.3. Claims 1, 21, and 42 are not obvious over White ...................................... 77
`10.3.1. White teaches a system clearly distinct from that of claims 1, 21, and
`42 ................................................................................................................ 79
`10.3.2. No electronic device of White that plays and/or selects a song
`receives information from a central system enabling the electronic
`device to obtain a song ............................................................................... 81
`10.3.3. No electronic device of White obtains the songs from a remote
`source ......................................................................................................... 86
`
`ii
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`10.3.4. No electronic device of White receives a playlist ...................................... 87
`10.4. Claims 13 and 34 are not obvious over White ........................................... 89
`
`
`iii
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`
`I, Ivan Zatkovich, hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Counsel for Patent Owner to provide opinions
`
`on certain issues concerning Inter Partes Review No. IPR2013-00594 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,050,652 (“the ‘652 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am aware that the Petition filed in the above-identified proceeding
`
`asserted various grounds and that the Board instituted this proceeding on a subset
`
`of the asserted grounds. I am also aware that Petitioner submitted with the Petition
`
`a declaration of V. Michael Bove, Jr., Ph.D. (“the Bove Report”) opining on claim
`
`construction and the validity of the challenged claims.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to analyze the ‘652 Patent, the art cited by the
`
`Petitioner, the Bove Report, and the Institution Decision dated March 20, 2014
`
`(“the Institution Decision”), as they relate to the particular grounds instituted by
`
`the Board. My opinions are set forth below. I make these statements based upon
`
`facts and matters 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.
`
`4.
`
`I am a Principal Consultant of eComp Consultants. My firm is
`
`compensated at a standard rate of $475 per hour for my work on this matter. This
`
`1
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`compensation is not dependent on my opinions or testimony or the outcome of this
`
`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`
`matter.
`
`2.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, with a minor in
`
`Electrical Engineering Digital Circuit Design, from the University of Pittsburgh in
`
`1980. I completed a Master’s thesis in Computer Networks in 1981 at the
`
`University of Pittsburgh, the results of which were published in Byte Magazine.
`
`7.
`
`I have over 28 years of experience in computer science, including
`
`media file sharing and Web multi-media publishing (e.g., content, images,
`
`audio/video streaming), early wireless/cell phone communication, CTI (Computer
`
`Telephony Integration), eCommerce, and Geolocation.
`
`8.
`
`I have been a Principal Consultant with eComp Consultants for over
`
`ten years. eComp Consultants provides professional consulting services relating to
`
`computer and technical matters in a wide range of industries including embedded
`
`internet systems, cellular telephony, and cloud-based services. Such consulting
`
`services include working with clients on specific information technology projects,
`
`process improvement, project management, and other technology issues. eComp
`
`Consultants also provides professional expert witness services.
`
`2
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`
`At eComp Consultants, I have been frequently called upon to provide
`
`9.
`
`my expert opinion on matters concerning patent disputes. I have been qualified as
`
`a technical expert in over 24 matters including media file sharing, Web multi-
`
`media publishing, embedded internet systems, cellular telephony, and cloud-based
`
`services, and have given testimony as an expert at trial and by deposition,
`
`including in areas that relate to the technology described in the ‘652 Patent. A
`
`complete list of the cases in which I have testified in the last four years is included
`
`in Exhibit 1. Relevant exemplary cases include:
`
`• Certain Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players,
`
`Home Theater Systems, Tablets and Mobile Phone, Components Thereof
`
`and Associated Software, Proceeding No. 337-TA-882 (pending) – I
`
`served as an expert for Complainant Black Hills Media, LLC (the Patent
`
`Owner in the above-identified proceedings) and provided several expert
`
`reports, which included my analysis and opinions regarding claim
`
`construction, validity, and infringement of various claims of the ‘652
`
`Patent inter alia.
`
`• Zamora v. CBS Radio et al., 09-20940-CIV-MORENO (S.D. Fl.) (settled
`
`2010) – I served as an expert for Plaintiff on issues of patent validity and
`
`infringement for Internet radio technology. I also provided an expert
`
`3
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`
`report and was deposed regarding the use of streaming media and Web
`
`radio players. The patents at issue claimed priority to 1999.
`
`• ABC v. ENC et al., H-06-1032 (S.D. TX.) – I served as an expert for
`
`Plaintiff in a patent infringement dispute concerning computer remote
`
`controls, remote command processing, and remote communication. The
`
`patents at issue claimed priority to 1998. I provided non-infringement
`
`and invalidity rebuttal reports and was deposed regarding the same.
`
`10.
`
`In my professional career, I have worked for companies such as
`
`Digital Equipment Corp. and GTE Data Services (now Verizon) on projects
`
`designing, developing, and integrating software and hardware for major computer
`
`and telecommunications systems as well as Eva-Tone, Inc. on projects designing
`
`and developing eCommerce, content management, and web publishing systems.
`
`Relevant exemplary multimedia projects from my career include:
`
`• Eva-Tone Inc. (2002-2007) – Implemented online video streaming and
`
`music purchase systems for a music eCommerce website.
`
`• GTE Data Services/Verizon (1987-1996) – developed digital voice and
`
`multimedia communications using high speed ISDN & FDDI.
`
`• Digital Equipment Corp. (1980-1987) – designed and implemented video
`
`disk driver interfaces.
`
`4
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`11. By virtue of the above experience, I have gained a detailed
`
`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`
`understanding of the technology that is at issue in this proceeding. My experience
`
`with media file sharing, embedded internet systems, cellular telephony, cloud-
`
`based services, and Web multi-media publishing (content, images, audio/video
`
`streaming) is directly relevant to the subject matter of the ‘652 Patent. I am also
`
`particularly familiar with the ‘652 Patent as a result of the expert testimony that I
`
`provided on behalf of the Patent Owner in the pending ITC Proceeding No. 337-
`
`TA-882, in which I provided my opinions regarding claim construction and
`
`validity of the ‘652 Patent.
`
`12.
`
`I believe I am qualified to provide opinions about how one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in November 2000 would have interpreted and understood the ‘652
`
`Patent and the art relied upon by the Petitioner as discussed below.
`
`3.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`3.1. Anticipation
`
`13.
`
`I understand that a claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference
`
`discloses, explicitly or inherently, all limitations of the invention arranged or
`
`combined in the same way as in the claim. I further understand that inherency may
`
`not be established by probabilities or possibilities, and the fact that one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art understands that the missing limitation could exist under certain
`
`5
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`circumstances is not sufficient. Instead, the party claiming inherency must prove
`
`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`
`that the missing matter is necessarily present and that it would be so recognized by
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Whether the inherent disclosure was
`
`recognized at the time of the reference is immaterial.
`
`14.
`
`I further understand that the disclosure of an anticipatory reference
`
`must describe the claimed invention to a degree adequate to enable person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to not only comprehend the invention, but also to make, or
`
`in the case of a method, use, the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
`
`Provided that the reference asserted is enabling, it is my understanding that it need
`
`not disclose any independent use or utility to anticipate a claimed invention.
`
`3.2. Obviousness
`
`15.
`
`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
`
`obviousness based on a combination of the elements disclosed in the prior art, it is
`
`6
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`my understanding that a petitioner must identify a specific combination that
`
`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`
`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.
`
`16. 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.
`
`17.
`
`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
`
`7
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`of the invention in issue, however, it should be apparent that the expert is not
`
`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`
`conflating “common sense” and what appears obvious in hindsight.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that if the teachings of a prior art 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.
`
`19.
`
`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
`
`8
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative
`
`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`
`invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation
`
`into the invention claimed.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that where the party asserting invalidity establishes a
`
`prima facie case of obviousness, the burden shifts to the patent owner to come
`
`forward with objective evidence demonstrating secondary considerations of non-
`
`obviousness. I have been instructed that secondary considerations include: (1)
`
`long-felt but unsolved need; (2) commercial success of the invention; (3) failed
`
`efforts of others; (4) copying by others; (5) praise for the invention; (7) unexpected
`
`results; (8) disbelief of experts; (9) general skepticism of those in the art; (10)
`
`commercial acquiescence; and (11) simultaneous development. I understand that
`
`evidence of secondary considerations must be considered as part of all the
`
`evidence, not just when the decision maker remains in doubt after reviewing the
`
`art.
`
`21.
`
`I also understand that there must be a nexus between the claimed
`
`invention and the secondary considerations before the evidence is relevant to the
`
`question of obviousness. In particular, in the case of commercial success of a
`
`product embodying the claimed invention, I understand that the success must be
`
`shown to have in some way been due to the nature of the claimed invention, as
`
`9
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`opposed to other economic or commercial factors unrelated to the technical quality
`
`of the patented subject matter. I understand that commercial acquiescence and
`
`licensing are indicative of nonobviousness where it involves prominent or a
`
`substantial portion of the competitors in the relevant market.
`
`4.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY STUDY
`
`22.
`
`I have read the ‘652 Patent and have considered its disclosure from
`
`the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art in November 2000.
`
`23.
`
`I have also read and considered inter alia the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of the ‘652 Patent, the Bove Report, and the Institution Decision.
`
`24.
`
`I have also read the following references upon which the Board
`
`instituted this proceeding, and considered them from the perspective of the person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in November 2000:
`
`• Qureshey et al., PCT Patent Publication No. WO 99/38266, entitled
`
`“Intelligent Radio” (“Qureshey”);
`
`• Berman et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,502,194, entitled “System for
`
`Playback of Network Audio Material on Demand” (“Berman”);
`
`10
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`
`• White et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,187,947, entitled “System and
`
`Method for Communicating Selected Information to an Electronic
`
`Device” (“White”); and
`
`• Leeke et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,587,127, entitled “Content Player
`
`Method and Server with User Profile” (“Leeke”).
`
`25.
`
`I am also familiar with a large number of other prior art references in
`
`the field of the invention, including but not limited to references cited by the
`
`Petitioner in this and related IPR proceedings and references considered by the
`
`parties in the ITC proceeding regarding the ‘652 Patent mentioned above.
`
`5. ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`26.
`
`It is my opinion that the relevant field with respect to the ‘652 Patent
`
`is media file sharing. The ordinary level of skill in the art is a Bachelor’s degree in
`
`computer science or electrical engineering or its equivalent and 1-2 years of
`
`experience with media file sharing.
`
`27.
`
`In reaching the opinions contained herein, I have considered the types
`
`of problems encountered in the art in November 2000, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, and the education level and professional capabilities of workers in the
`
`field. The basis of my familiarity with the level of skill in the art is my years of
`
`11
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`interaction with large numbers of workers in the field and my knowledge of the
`
`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`
`technical issues in the field.
`
`28. The Bove Report indicates that “a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`pertaining to the ‘652 patent would have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer
`
`science or electrical engineering, and at least one year of practical experience with
`
`networked multimedia.” Ex. 1002, ¶ 8.
`
`29.
`
`In my opinion, there is no material difference in my and the Bove
`
`Report’s opinion of the fields of experience (“media file sharing” versus
`
`“networked multimedia”). However, I do take issue with the Bove Report’s open-
`
`ended definition of the level of experience of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(i.e., “at least one year of practical experience. . .”) because it obscures the issue of
`
`what “ordinary” skill means.
`
`6. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘652 PATENT
`
`30.
`
`In 2000, when the application that resulted in the ‘652 Patent was
`
`filed, the industry was working to aggregate or collect audio content from multiple
`
`sources. For example, some companies were developing products that aggregated
`
`content on player devices such as a personal digital assistant (PDA) or other
`
`devices with large amounts of storage. Alternatively, some companies focused
`
`instead on products that aggregated audio content centrally such that a user’s
`
`12
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`player device could receive for playback centrally-stored audio content selected by
`
`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`
`that particular device.
`
`31. While the industry was predominantly focused on the significance of
`
`the audio content in digital content distribution systems emerging in November
`
`2000, the ‘652 Patent was focused on the role of playlists in managing audio
`
`content . The ‘652 Patent relates to methods and systems for assigning playlists to
`
`one or more electronic devices and for obtaining and playing songs identified by
`
`the playlists on the electronic device(s). The role of the playlist in content
`
`distribution systems is one of the more significant innovations disclosed in the
`
`‘652 Patent—more specifically, the receipt of an assigned playlist by an electronic
`
`device enables the device to obtain and play the content indicated by the playlist.
`
`For example, the ‘652 Patent describes a process that allows a user logged into a
`
`central server (which may authorize the user based on a password) to assign a
`
`centrally-managed playlist, identifying a plurality of songs aggregated from one or
`
`more remote sources, to a local electronic device. The centrally-managed playlists
`
`can thus be controlled by the user, for example, to add songs to and delete songs
`
`from the playlist. See ‘652 Patent, 23:35-45 and 24:8-12. A copy of the playlist
`
`can then be transmitted from the server to the device, such that the receiving device
`
`takes control to obtain audio content of the songs indicated in the playlist from the
`
`one or more remote sources and to sequentially play the songs identified by the
`
`13
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`playlist. See ‘652 Patent, Figures 19B-19C and 27:47-30:18. Another core
`
`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`
`innovation of the ‘652 Patent is the notion of a dual mode device that not only has
`
`the ability to be assigned a playlist, but also has the ability to receive Internet radio
`
`streams. See ‘652 Patent, Figures 1-2, 7:28-67, 8:1-57.
`
`32.
`
`In every method and system described in the ‘652 Patent, three
`
`distinct pieces of information are received or obtained by the electronic device in
`
`order to the play the songs indicated by a playlist assigned thereto:
`
`i.
`
`a playlist identifying a plurality of media items (see e.g., ‘652 Patent,
`
`4:29-30, “The playlists include titles of audio from a variety of audio
`
`sources.”);
`
`ii.
`
`information enabling the electronic device to obtain the media items
`
`(see, e.g., ‘652 Patent, 4:30-31, “The assignments provide information
`
`about the location of other web sites containing the audio sources.”);
`
`and
`
`iii.
`
`the media items themselves (see, e.g., ‘652 Patent, 4:32-33, “The
`
`software module is configured to connect through the ISP to the web
`
`sites to download the audio files.”).
`
`That is, the ‘652 Patent distinguishes between the information for identifying a
`
`song (e.g., a song title), the information for obtaining a song (e.g., a location or
`
`14
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`source from which a song identified in a playlist may be obtained), and the song
`
`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`
`itself (e.g., an audio file to be streamed or downloaded).
`
`33. Though the ‘652 Patent makes clear that the information identifying
`
`the songs (e.g., titles of songs within a playlist) is distinct from both the
`
`information used to obtain the songs and the song itself, the ‘652 Patent indicates
`
`that the information used by the electronic device to obtain the song can be
`
`received independently from the playlist or can be received together with the
`
`information identifying the songs (e.g., appended to the playlist). For example, in
`
`one embodiment, the ‘652 Patent describes a process in which each of these three
`
`distinct pieces of information are received or obtained separately:
`
`Another aspect of the present invention is a method for assigning playlists of
`music from one electronic device to another. First, a network connection is
`used for transmitting and receiving digital data over a communication
`network to an Internet service provider. Next, the process provides a first
`software module to manage playlists of songs. The software module allows
`a user to compose playlists from a variety of audio sources. The software
`module allows a user to assign a playlist from a first device to a second
`device. Next, the process checks the second device’s data storage space for
`songs listed on the assigned playlist. Next, the process accesses a server
`site to obtain locations of the web sites the first device downloaded its
`audio files from. The process then provides a second software module to
`connect to various web sites to download remaining songs needed for the
`
`15
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`playlist. The second software module connects if songs needed to form the
`playlist are not stored on the second device's data storage space. Finally, the
`process uploads files to the server from the first device and downloads files
`[to] the second device if the second software module is unable to download
`a file from said web site.
`
`‘652 Patent, 4:50-5:3 (emphasis added)
`
`34. However, the ‘652 Patent also provides embodiments in which the
`
`information used by the electronic device to obtain the song can be received
`
`together with the information for identifying the songs (e.g., URLs appended to a
`
`playlist identifying a plurality of songs). For example, in one embodiment
`
`described in the ‘652 Patent, the “playlist 1528” can be appended to include
`
`“URL’s of where the audio files were retrieved from.” ‘652 Patent, 21:62-65. See
`
`also ‘652 Patent, 22:48-50 (“Within the playlist, the URL’s indicate the location
`
`from which the audio files associated with the song titles in the playlist can be
`
`downloaded.”).
`
`35. Regardless, the ‘652 Patent provides that even if the playlist and
`
`information enabling the electronic device to obtain the song are received together,
`
`the information identifying a song is different from the information used to obtain
`
`a song. In other words, while the playlist provides information identifying a
`
`plurality of songs, the information for obtaining the song is distinct from the
`
`16
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`information provided by the playlist. For example, in every portion of the ‘652
`
`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`
`Patent that explicitly shows the contents of a playlist, the title of the song is
`
`identified as being included in the playlist. See Figures 17D, 17E, 17H, 18D, 18E,
`
`18F of the ‘652 Patent. There are, however, no embodiments described in the ‘652
`
`Patent in which only a URL, for example, serves as information identifying a song,
`
`or in which a playlist consists exclusively of a list of URLs. Thus, the ‘652 Patent
`
`makes clear that while the “information enabling a song to be obtained” can be
`
`associated with the “information identifying the song,” the information enabling
`
`the electronic device to obtain a song in and of itself is not sufficient to identify the
`
`song within the meaning of the ‘652 Patent.
`
`36. Additional exemplary teachings of the ‘652 Patent are described in
`
`detail below.
`
`6.1. A Network-Enabled Electronic Device
`
`37. One aspect of the ‘652 Patent is a network-enabled audio device that
`
`allows a user to store files, to play standard audio CDs, to play MP3 encoded CDs,
`
`to record songs from CDs, to receive digitized radio broadcasts over the World
`
`Wide Web (Web), and to receive assignments of playlists of songs from other
`
`network-enabled audio devices. See ‘652 Patent, 2:58-63.
`
`17
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`38. Figure 11 of the ‘652 Patent (reproduced below) depicts one
`
`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`
`exemplary embodiment of a computing environment for a network-enabled audio
`
`device. The network includes network-enabled electronic device A (1108),
`
`network-enabled electronic device B (1110), and personal computer (1106). These
`
`electronic devices interact with a server (1104) “through the network 1102 (such as
`
`the Internet).” ‘652 Patent, 16:56-60.
`
`
`
`6.2. Receiving a playlist assigned to the electronic device
`
`39.
`
`In systems described by in the ‘652 Patent, the electronic devices
`
`(e.g., devices (1108) and (1110)) receive playlists and playlist content over the
`
`Internet, or a different network. For example, when the network is a “home
`
`18
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`network,” an electronic device within the network “does not need to connect to the
`
`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`
`Internet and can retrieve the necessary file through the network connection.” ‘652
`
`Patent, 30:19-26. The home network can be, for example, a “local area network
`
`(LAN) connection to a PC or other network-enabled audio device.” ‘652 Patent,
`
`3:58-60. See also Figure 15 (depicting another example of a network including
`
`network-enabled devices and a server) and ‘652 Patent, 23:1-5 (“In one
`
`embodiment, there is no server site 1104. The PC IPAN client software 1532
`
`stores the playlists that are located throughout the IPAN 1100.”).
`
`40. As discussed in detail below, the ‘652 Patent describes that an
`
`electronic device in the network receives a playlist that identifies the titles of a
`
`plurality of songs. See, e.g., ‘652 Patent, 4:29-30 (“The playlists include titles of
`
`audio from a variety of audio sources.”). The songs of the playlist are arranged to
`
`be played in a sequence, which can be a default order or a random sequence
`
`initiated by user selection of a “shuffle” option. See, e.g., ‘652 Patent, 24:38-43
`
`(“The playlists will typically start from the beginning,” however, the user “can
`
`click the shuffle button 1796 to ‘randomize’ the playlist as opposed to playing the
`
`playlist in the same order.”).
`
`41. The ‘652 Patent describes that playlists can be assigned to (i.e.,
`
`directed to) an electronic device from a remote source. In some embodiments, the
`
`19
`
`BHM Ex. 2007
`
`

`

`same playlist can be assigned to multiple devices. For example, both devices
`
`IPR2013-00594 (U.S. Patent 8,050,652)
`
`
`
`(1510) and (1520) in the user’s personal audio network can be assigned the same
`