`Entered: May 20, 2014
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
` SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`AMERICA, LLC; LG ELECTRONICS, INC.; LG ELECTRONICS
`U.S.A., INC.; LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM USA, INC.;
`HTC CORP., and HTC AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
` AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Samsung Ex. 1015 p. 1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`On December 2, 2013, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC,
`LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics
`Mobilecomm USA, Inc., HTC Corp., and HTC America, Inc. (“Petitioners”)
`filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 16, 19, and 20 of U.S.
`Patent 7,953,390 B2 (“the ’390 patent”). Paper 1. On December 12, 2013,
`Petitioners filed a corrected Petition. Paper 11 (“Pet.”). The owner of the
`’390 patent, Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC (“Patent Owner”), filed a
`Preliminary Response to the Petition on March 7, 2014. Paper 19 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides:
`THRESHOLD – The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311
`and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail
`with respect to claims 16, 19, and 20 of the ’390 patent. Accordingly,
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we authorize an inter partes review to be
`instituted as to those claims.
`A. Related Proceedings
`The ’390 patent is being asserted in Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v.
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 1:12-cv-557 (E.D. Tex.). Paper 18. The
`’390 patent is also the subject of pending inter partes review petition
`
`2
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1015 p. 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`IPR2014-00212. Id.; Pet. 8.
`B. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioners rely on the following prior art references:
`Galensky
`US 6,845,398 B1
`Jan. 18, 2005 Ex. 1003
`Bork
`US 6,633,932 B1
`Oct. 14, 2003 Ex. 1004
`Boys
`US 6,314,094 B1
`Nov. 6, 2001
`Ex. 1005
`Aaron
`US 4,345,147
`Aug. 17, 1982 Ex. 1006
`Ravi
`US 6,292,834 B1
`Sep. 18, 2001 Ex. 1007
`Carmel
`US 6,389,473 B1
`May 14, 2002 Ex. 1008
`
`
`C. The Asserted Grounds
`Petitioners assert the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 9):
`References
`Basis Claims
`Galensky and Bork
`§103
`16, 19, and 20
`Galensky, Bork, and Carmel
`§103
`19
`Boys, Aaron, and Ravi
`§103
`16, 19, and 20
`Boys, Aaron, Ravi, and Carmel
`§103
`19
`
`
`D. The ’390 Patent
`The ’390 patent is directed to a delivery system for digitally stored
`content. Ex. 1001, 1:17-19. In particular, the ’390 patent relates to the
`wireless delivery of media content, such as songs, video, on-line radio
`stations, on-line broadcasts, and text. Id. at 2:55-59, 3:10-15, 3:37-39,
`14:41-44.
`Many different wireless devices may be used to select and receive
`media content in the system and method of the ’390 patent, including “a
`
`3
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1015 p. 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`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.” Id. at 4:29-32. In at least one embodiment,
`the wireless device contains a physical interface that allows a different
`electronic device simultaneously to communicate with, and to recharge the
`battery of, the wireless device using a single cable having multiple
`conductive elements. See id. at 17:18-62, 20:9-20.
`In one embodiment of the ’390 patent, a user selects desired audio
`information from a webpage. Id. at 14:34-44. This audio information may
`include “a single song, a plurality [of] different songs,” or “an entire album.”
`Id. at 14:42-44. After the user finishes selecting the desired songs, the
`system creates both a playlist and a listing of “network or URL locations”
`where the songs on the playlist may be found. Id. at 14:44-53. The songs on
`the playlist then are retrieved from one or more of the listed network
`locations and streamed to the user. Id. at 5:58-6:10, 14:50-61, 15:46-51.
`The selected songs may be streamed to a user over a high-speed
`wireless communications network. Id. at 5:64-6:7. In this
`embodiment, selected content is delivered initially to the wireless
`device at a high transmission rate. Id. Once a sufficient buffer has
`been established in the memory of the wireless device, the rest of the
`selected content then is transmitted at a second, slower rate. Id.
`E. Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, only claim 16 is independent. Claim 16 and
`dependent claim 19 are illustrative of the claims at issue and are reproduced
`below:
` 16. A system for content delivery, comprising:
`a portable device having a display, a local rechargeable battery,
`4
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1015 p. 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`
`a wireless communication system, and a processor;
`
` physical interface of the portable device, the physical
`interface configured to connect to an interface system that
`includes a cable having multiple conductive elements,
`wherein the physical interface is designed such that a
`different electronic device can be communicatively coupled
`with the physical interface of the portable device using the
`interface system in a manner that allows the different
`electronic device to recharge the local rechargeable battery
`using at least one of the multiple conductive elements and to
`communicate with the portable device using at least one other
`of the multiple conductive elements; and
`
` computer-readable medium having stored instructions that
`when executed are operable to cause the processor: (1) to
`present an icon on the display, the icon associated with
`content that is deliverable as streaming media; (2) to
`recognize a selection of the icon; and (3) to switch between a
`set of communication rates at which the portable device
`receives a first portion and a second portion of the content,
`wherein the set of communication rates comprise at least a
`first data rate and a second data rate that is slower than the
`first data rate.
`
` a
`
` a
`
`
`
` 19. The system of claim 16, wherein the stored instructions
`are further operable to cause the processor: (1) to obtain a
`listing of network locations at which to access the streaming
`media; and (2) to cause a first of the network locations to be
`accessed to facilitate a streaming delivery of the streaming
`media.
`
`
`(line breaks added for readability).
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be
`given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`5
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1015 p. 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). In
`determining the broadest reasonable construction, a claim term is presumed
`to carry its ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech.,
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This presumption may be
`rebutted when a patentee, acting as a lexicographer, sets forth an alternate
`definition of a term in the specification with reasonable clarity,
`deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`1994).
`Petitioners provide proposed constructions for multiple claim terms.
`Pet. 15-18. Patent Owner disputes one of these constructions and submits its
`own proposed construction. Prelim. Resp. 6-7. For this decision, we
`construe only the one claim term we deem necessary for institution.
`A listing of network locations at which to access the streaming media
`
`
`Petitioners’ Proposal
`A list of sources, addresses or links
`for streaming media that is available
`on a network. Pet. 17.
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposal
`A list of network addresses
`corresponding to portions of an
`available media. Prelim. Resp. 6-7.
`
`
`
`Petitioners assert that the “listing of network locations” may contain
`multiple network locations for multiple songs on a network. Pet. 17, 53-54.
`Patent Owner argues Petitioners’ proposed construction is too broad.
`According to Patent Owner, because the term “the streaming media” refers
`to a single file or song, and because “network locations” refer to a plurality
`of network locations, each of the listed network locations must provide a
`portion of the same single, broken-up media file. Prelim. Resp. 6-7.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1015 p. 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`
`The foundation of Patent Owner’s argument is that the term “the
`streaming media” in claim 19 refers to a single file or song. The term
`“streaming media” is not defined explicitly in the ’390 patent. In the context
`of claims 16, 19, and 20, the term is introduced first in independent claim
`16, which recites: “(1) to present an icon on the display, the icon associated
`with content that is deliverable as streaming media.” Use of the term
`“deliverable as” indicates that “streaming media” refers to the method of
`content delivery, and not to a single file or song, as asserted by Patent
`Owner. This is consistent with the general definition of “streaming,” which
`is “relating to or being the transfer of data (as audio or video material) in a
`continuous stream especially for immediate processing or playback.”
`(Streaming Definition, MERRIAM-WEBSTER.com, http://www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/streaming); see also (Streaming Media Definition,
`http://www.techopedia.com/definition/14586/streaming-media) (noting that
`“streaming media” refers to a method of delivering multimedia elements).
`It is, instead, the term “content” in claim 16 that indicates what
`information is delivered “as streaming media.” In the ’390 specification, the
`term “content,” and the related terms “desirable audio information” and
`“selected audio information,” are not limited to a single file or song. Ex.
`1001, 1:17-19, 2:48-65, 6:20-33, 7:21-30, 8:64-9:5, 14:36-58. In addition, to
`the extent that “the streaming media” in claim 19 was intended to identify
`more than the method of content delivery, use of the word “the” in “the
`streaming media” presumptively carries the meaning of “one or more,” and
`Patent Owner directs us to no portion of the ’390 patent specification or
`prosecution history expressing a clear intent to limit the scope of “the
`streaming media” in claim 19, or “content” in claim 16, to a single file or
`
`7
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1015 p. 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`song. See Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343,
`1350-1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting that the terms “a,” “an,” and “the” are
`presumed to mean “one or more” when used in conjunction with the
`antecedent “comprising”); Prelim. Resp. 6-7. Therefore, we are not
`persuaded that “the streaming media” in claim 19 is limited to a single file or
`song or that each network location must contain a portion of the same,
`broken-up media file.
`
`Petitioners also propose that “network locations” be construed as
`“sources, addresses, or links.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:42-51, 10:3-5,
`14:48-58). Upon review of Petitioners’ argument and the ’390 specification,
`however, we are not persuaded that the term “network locations” is defined
`expressly as “sources, addresses, or links,” nor is it evident why this term
`requires further clarification at this time. See Ex. 1001, 3:44-54, 14:48-58.
`In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the broadest reasonable
`construction of the term “a listing of network locations at which to access
`the streaming media” is “a listing of network locations at which content that
`is to be delivered as streaming media may be accessed.”
`B. Obviousness of Claims 16, 19, and 20 over Galensky and Bork
`Petitioners assert that claims 16, 19, and 20 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 over Galensky and Bork. In support of their argument,
`Petitioners provide detailed claims charts and rely on the supporting
`declaration testimony of Dr. Schuyler Quackenbush (Ex. 1015).
`1. Galensky
`
`Galensky is directed to a “system, method and portable, wireless
`device for receiving, playing and storing streamed multimedia files over a
`wireless telecommunications network.” Ex. 1003, 3:13-17. The portable
`
`8
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1015 p. 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`device of Galensky includes a display, a rechargeable battery, a wireless
`transmitter, and a microprocessor. Id. at 4:1-33. The wireless device also
`contains various input controls for operating the device and for selecting
`multimedia files to be streamed from the multimedia server. Id. at 4:42-48.
`In the Galensky system, the media server “either stores multimedia
`files or a list of particular multimedia files and their respective
`address/location.” Id. at 5:7-9. When a wireless device connects to the
`media server, the system transmits a list of these available files and songs to
`the user. Id. at 5:18-24. The user then may view this list on the visual
`display of the wireless device and, using the input controls, select desired
`songs or videos for streaming. Id. at 5:18-42.
`Galensky discloses initially streaming the desired content to a user at
`a high transmission rate. Id. at 5:66-6:27. Then, once a sufficient buffer has
`been established in the memory of the wireless device, the wireless device
`signals that a second, lower rate may be used. Id.
`Bork
`2.
`Bork is directed to a universal serial bus (“USB”) interface and cable.
`Ex. 1004, Abstract. The USB cable has multiple conductive elements,
`allowing an electronic device to simultaneously communicate with, and
`recharge the battery of, a portable device. Id. at 5:12-14, 5:41-43, 6:66-7:12,
`8:18-28. According to Bork, this single cable system has numerous
`advantages. Id. at 2:54-63. First, a bulky electrical power transformer is not
`required for the portable device. Id. at 2:54-63, 5:5-15, Figs. 21, 22.
`Second, a user can synchronize data with a computer and download software
`updates for the portable device at the same time the battery of the portable
`device is being recharged. Id. at 4:17-24, 4:47-55, Fig. 22. Finally, a laptop
`
`9
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1015 p. 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`computer running solely on battery power can recharge the battery of
`another portable device, which, according to Bork, is useful when another
`source of power is unavailable. Id. at 8:18-28.
`3. Analysis
`Petitioners contend that Galensky and Bork disclose all the limitations
`of claims 16, 19, and 20. For example, with respect to claim 16, Petitioners
`assert that Galensky discloses a portable device with a display, a
`rechargeable battery, a wireless transmitter, and a microprocessor. Pet. 19;
`Ex. 1003, 2:8-12, 4:1-41. Petitioners further assert that Galensky discloses a
`portable device having stored instructions operable to cause the processor:
`(1) to present an icon on a display that is associated with content that is
`deliverable as streaming media; (2) to recognize the selection of such an
`icon; and (3) to switch between a first, higher communications rate and a
`second, lower rate. Pet. 19-20. Petitioners also assert that Bork discloses a
`physical interface that permits an electronic device to both communicate
`with, and recharge the battery of, a portable device using a single cable
`having multiple conductive elements. Pet. 20-21, 26-29; Ex. 1004, 5:12-14,
`6:66-7:12, 8:18-28.
`With respect to claim 19, Petitioners assert that Galensky discloses
`obtaining in the portable device a listing of network locations where selected
`content may be accessed, and causing a first of these network locations to be
`accessed to facilitate the streaming delivery of the selected content. Pet. 19,
`34; Ex. 1003, 5:3-9, 5:18-42; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 59-61. With respect to claim 20,
`Petitioners assert that Galensky discloses streaming both audio and video
`files. Pet. 33-34; Ex. 1003, 1:7-11, 4:42-48, 5:3-9, 5:18-24, 5:31-45.
`Petitioners, supported by the declaration testimony of Dr.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1015 p. 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`Quackenbush, assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
`obvious to “incorporate Bork’s teachings of the advantageous use of a
`single, multiple-conductor cable (a USB cable) to provide both recharging
`and data communication capability between a PC and a portable device, in
`implementing Galensky’s portable device.” Pet. 21-22; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 42-52.
`According to Petitioners, such a combination would simply bring together
`two known elements, “e.g., Bork’s USB for recharging the battery and
`Galensky’s portable device with data connectivity and switching
`communications rates,” with each performing the same function as it does
`separately, to yield predictable results. Pet. 24; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 48-51; see also
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (noting that “when
`a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same
`function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would
`expect from such an arrangement,” the combination is likely obvious
`(internal quotations and citations omitted)).
`In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner asserts that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Galensky and Bork
`because “Galensky makes no mention of the disclosed device receiving data
`over a cable” and “one would not need a cable that could both charge the
`battery and transfer data for the device disclosed in Galensky.” Prelim.
`Resp. 11-12. Although Galensky is silent with respect to how the wireless
`device is recharged and updated, at this stage of the proceeding we find
`persuasive Dr. Quackenbush’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art
`would have found it both advantageous and obvious to incorporate Bork’s
`well-known USB interface into the wireless device of Galensky to allow for
`synchronizing, updating, and recharging of the wireless device using a single
`
`11
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1015 p. 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`cable. Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 42-52; Ex. 1011, 17 (indicating that as early as
`September 23, 1998, the technical specifications of the USB interface and
`cable were publically available).
`Patent Owner also argues that Galensky does not disclose that the
`portable device initiates the switch between a higher and a lower
`communications rate. Prelim. Resp. 16-17. At this stage of the proceeding,
`we do not find this argument persuasive, as Galensky explicitly discloses
`that the microprocessor of the portable device initiates the switch between a
`higher and a lower transmission rate:
`Once an acceptable buffer is created (e.g., approximately 5-10
`seconds of buffer), the microprocessor 82 will instruct the
`transceiver 94 to signal the wireless network 40 to decrease the
`data transmission rate to the minimum rate necessary for
`adequate transmission . . . .
`
`
`Ex. 1003, 6:10-15; see also Ex. 1003, 4:1-8 (noting that transceiver 94 is
`part of the wireless device and is connected to microprocessor 82), 4:33-35
`(noting that microprocessor 82 is part of the portable device).
`Patent Owner further argues that Galensky only discloses transmitting
`to the portable device a list of available multimedia files, and not “a listing
`of network locations” where these files may be found. Prelim. Resp. 24-25.
`On this record, however, we conclude that Petitioners have presented
`sufficient evidence to show that Galensky’s multimedia servers maintain a
`“list of particular multimedia files and their respective address/location” on
`the network and that the user is provided with the address/location of
`selected files. Pet. 33; Ex. 1003, 4:58-60 (noting that the portable device of
`Galensky maintains a “list of previous files (e.g., songs) and/or links that
`were previously accessed”) (emphasis added), 5:3-9, 5:18-24.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1015 p. 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`
`With respect to claim 19, Patent Owner argues that Galensky and
`Bork fail to disclose “multiple locations (plural) for a single selectable
`media.” Prelim. Resp. 24-25. We are not persuaded by this argument,
`because it is based on Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction that we
`did not adopt.
`Upon review of Petitioners’ and Patent Owner’s arguments, we
`conclude that Petitioners have set forth sufficient articulated reasoning with
`rational underpinning to support the proposed combination of references.
`See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. We, therefore, are persuaded that the information
`presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail in
`showing claims 16, 19, and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`obvious over Galensky and Bork.
`C. Obviousness of Claim 19 Over Galensky, Bork, and Carmel
`Petitioners contend that claim 19 also would have been obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Galensky, Bork, and Carmel. Petitioners rely upon
`this ground of unpatentability to address Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction of “a listing of network locations at which to access the
`streaming media.” Pet. 53-55. As we have declined to adopt Patent
`Owner’s proposed construction, Petitioners’ ground relying on Galensky,
`Bork, and Carmel is redundant to the ground of unpatentability on which we
`initiate inter partes review. Therefore, we do not authorize an inter partes
`review on this ground.
`D. Obviousness of Claims 16, 19, and 20 Over Boys, Aaron, and Ravi
` and Claim 19 over Boys, Aaron, Ravi, and Carmel
`Petitioners assert that claims 16, 19, and 20 are also unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Boys, Aaron, and Ravi, and that
`claim 19 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Boys,
`13
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1015 p. 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`Aaron, Ravi, and Carmel. Pet. 35, 53. Petitioners do not explain, however,
`why this set of references is stronger with respect to certain claims than
`Galensky and Bork. Therefore, we exercise our discretion not to go forward
`with all of the grounds proffered by Petitioners, and do not authorize an inter
`partes review on these grounds. See C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the information presented
`in the Petition and Preliminary Response establishes that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail in showing the
`unpatentability of claims 16, 19, and 20 of the ’390 patent.
`At this stage of the proceeding, the Board has not made a final
`determination as to the patentability of any challenged claim.
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is
`instituted as to claims 16, 19, and 20 of the ’390 patent on the following
`ground: claims 16, 19, and 20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`obvious over Galensky and Bork;
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`partes review of the ’390 patent is hereby instituted commencing on the
`entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds
`identified above and no other grounds are authorized.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1015 p. 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`For PETITIONERS:
`J. Steven Baughman
`Gabrielle E. Higgins
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.com
`
`Timothy J. May
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`timothy.may@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Todd Patterson
`Jerry R. Selinger
`PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP
`tpatterson@pattersonsheridan.com
`jselinger@pattersonsheridan.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Mark Rozman
`TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
`rozman@tphm.com
`Timothy G. Newman
`LARSON NEWMAN
`tnewman@larsonnewman.com
`
`Ryan M. Schultz
`ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
`rmschultz@rkmc.com
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1015 p. 15