`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Filed: January 30, 2014
`
`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;
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
` AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01184
`Patent 8,532,641 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
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01184
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`
`and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, (collectively,
`
`“Petitioner”) filed a Corrected Petition (Paper 4, “Pet.”) requesting
`
`institution of inter partes review of claims 1–3 and 5–14 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,532,641 B2 (“the ’641 patent”). Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”) to
`
`the Petition.
`
`
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an
`
`inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`
`claims challenged in the petition.”
`
`
`
`For the reasons given below, on this record we find that Petitioner has
`
`established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 8, 11,
`
`13, and 14 of the ’641 patent. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we authorize an
`
`inter partes review to be instituted as to these claims on the grounds set forth
`
`below.
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner represents that the ’641 patent is being asserted in Affinity
`
`Labs of Texas, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 3:14-cv-3030 (N.D.
`
`Cal.) and Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Blackberry, 5:14-cv-3031 (N.D.
`
`Cal.). Pet. 4. The ’641 patent is also the subject of co-pending IPR petitions
`
`IPR2014-01181 and IPR2014-01182. Paper 7, 1; Pet. 4.
`
`
`
`
`
`B. The ’641 Patent
`
`The ’641 patent is directed to a system and method for
`
`communicating selected information to an electronic device. Ex. 1201,
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01184
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`1:21–23, 2:15–21. In the disclosed embodiments, a radio listener may create
`
`a personalized playlist and “listen to this playlist in a wireless atmosphere
`
`while enjoying CD quality sound.” Id. at 2:18–21. The audio information
`
`transmitted to a user may include “streaming audio.” Id. at 3:67–4:1.
`
`
`
`Electronic devices contemplated for use in the disclosed system
`
`include “a network radio, a modular device, an audio system, a personal
`
`digital assistant (PDA), a cellular phone, or other electronic devices operable
`
`to receive information wirelessly communicated” by a communications
`
`engine. Id. at 5:36–41. Wireless communication may be accomplished
`
`using various means, including cellular communications, AM or FM signals,
`
`and “high speed, low-power microwave wireless link[s],” such as a
`
`“Bluetooth link.” Id. at 2:33–43, 5:61–6:24.
`
`
`
`According to the ’641 patent, “conventional” wireless systems
`
`communicate across a channel in “an asynchronous manner.” Id. 6:34–39.
`
`In addition to this conventional asynchronous method, the ’641 patent also
`
`“advantageously allows for signals to be transmitted to an electronic device
`
`in a less than asynchronous manner.” Id. at 6:40–42.
`
`
`
`In one embodiment, the electronic device is also operable to
`
`communicate the received audio information to a different audio system,
`
`such as an audio radio receiver, using “a localized communications-
`
`signaling network.” Id. at 9:44–56, 10:26–35, 12:29–35. The electronic
`
`device may also communicate with the audio system using a physical
`
`interface with at least two conductive paths, the first path for communicating
`
`information and the second path for providing power to the electronic
`
`device. Id. at 18:40–53.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01184
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`
`
`Claims 1–3 and 5–14 are it issue in this proceeding. Claims 1 and 8
`
`are independent. Claims 2, 3, and 5–7 depend, directly or indirectly, from
`
`claim 1 and claims 9–14 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 8.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 8 are illustrative of the challenged claims and are
`
`reproduced below:
`
`1. A music enabled communication system, comprising: a
`wireless telephone device, the device having (1) a display at
`least partially defining a front surface of the device, (2) a
`housing component at least partially defining a back surface of
`the device, (3) an enclosure located between the front surface
`and the back surface, (4) a wireless communication module
`located within the enclosure, (5) a rechargeable power supply
`located within the enclosure, (6) a physical interface having a
`first and a second conductive path, the physical interface
`operable to communicate data via the first conductive path and
`to receive a recharging power for the rechargeable power
`supply via the second conductive path, and (7) a memory
`system, located within the enclosure; and
`
` a
`
` collection of instructions stored in the memory system, the
`collection of
`instructions operable when executed
`to
`communicate a collection of information about media content
`available from the wireless telephone device to a recipient
`device such that the recipient device can use the collection of
`information to generate a graphical menu comprising a
`selectable menu item associated with the available media
`content, to utilize the wireless communication module to stream
`a signal representing at least a portion of a song to the recipient
`device using a given asynchronous wireless channel of a
`localized communications signaling network, to recognize
`receipt of an incoming telephone call, and to alter an outputting
`of the signal in connection with recognizing receipt of the
`incoming telephone call.
`
`Ex. 1201, 19:29–57.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01184
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`8. A system for wirelessly communicating musical content,
`comprising:
`
` a
`
` portable electronic device having a processor operable to play
`an audio file that represents a song;
`
` a
`
` memory communicatively coupled to the processor and
`configured to store a plurality of audio files; and
`
` a
`
` wireless communication module communicatively coupled to
`the processor and operable to communicate a streaming audio
`signal that represents a playing of the song to a recipient device
`via a localized communications signaling network in response
`to a selection of a selectable menu item presented on a recipient
`device display, wherein the wireless communication module is
`compliant with a Bluetooth standard, further wherein the
`wireless communication module is configured to communicate
`at least a portion of the streaming audio signal to the recipient
`device using an asynchronous channel.
`
`Id. at 20:28–45.
`
`D. The Relied Upon Prior Art
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies upon the flowing prior art references, as well as the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Schuyler Quackenbush, Ph.D., dated July 23, 2014 (Ex.
`
`1223):
`
`Reference
`
`Publication
`
`Date
`
`Exhibit
`
`Ohmura
`
`US 6,937,732 B2
`
`Aug. 30, 2005
`
`1203
`
`Ahn
`
`US 2004/0214525 A1 Oct. 28, 2004
`
`Galensky
`
`US 6,845,398 B1
`
`Jan 18, 2005
`
`1205
`
`1209
`
`
`Owner’s Manual, Nokia 9000i Communicator, 1995–1997 Nokia Mobile
`Phones Ltd. (Ex. 1208B).
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01184
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Claims challenged
`
`Ohmura and Ahn
`
`§ 103 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14
`
`Ohmura, Ahn, and Nokia
`
`§ 103 1–3, 5, 9, 10, 13, and 14
`
`Ohmura, Ahn, and Galensky
`
`§ 103 7 and 12
`
`Ohmura, Ahn, Nokia, and Galensky
`
`§ 103 6, 7, and 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In determining the
`
`broadest reasonable construction, we presume that claim terms carry their
`
`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).
`
`streaming audio signal
`
`
`
`The term “streaming audio signal” is not expressly defined in the ’641
`
`patent. Petitioner contends that the term “stream” means to “transfer as a
`
`flow of data” and “streaming audio signal” should be construed to mean an
`
`“audio signal transferred as a flow of data.” Pet. 26; Ex. 1222, 4 (defining
`
`the term “stream” to mean “[t]o send data from one device to another”).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner contends that a “streaming audio signal” is a
`
`“signal/audio signal that is played as it arrives at a recipient device, not
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01184
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`requiring that an entire file be transferred to and stored at a recipient device
`
`prior to initiating playback.” Prelim. Resp. 7. In support of this
`
`construction, Patent Owner cites to several portions of the ’641 specification
`
`that discuss transferring files and streaming audio broadcasts. Id. (citing Ex.
`
`1201, 3:67–4:1, 7:4–7, 8:25–26, 10:20, 13:8–9).
`
`
`
`The ordinary meaning of “streaming” 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.merriamwebster.com
`
`/dictionary/streaming) (last visited Jan. 15, 2015). This is consistent with
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction requiring transfer of the audio
`
`information “as a flow of data.” Although the ordinary meaning of
`
`“streaming” encompasses the immediate processing or playback of data, as
`
`asserted by Patent Owner, it is not limited to this method, and the ’641
`
`patent Specification does not set forth an alternate definition of the term with
`
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision sufficient to justify
`
`departing from the ordinary meaning of the term. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`
`at 1480. Accordingly, we construe “streaming audio signal” to mean “an
`
`audio signal that is transferred in a continuous stream.”
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Priority
`
`The ’641 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 13/673,391
`
`(“the ’391 application”), which has a filing date of November 9, 2012. Ex.
`
`1201. Through a chain of continuing applications, the ’391 application
`
`claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 09/537,812
`
`(“the ’812 application”), which has a filing date of March 28, 2000. Patent
`
`Owner asserts that Ohmura and Ahn are not prior art with respect to the ’641
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01184
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`patent because “they were filed and published well after the priority date for
`
`the ’641 patent of March 28, 2000.” Prelim. Resp. 22; Ex. 1203 (indicating
`
`a filing date for Ohmura of April 4, 2001); Ex. 1205 (indicating a filing date
`
`for Ahn of October 26, 2001).
`
`
`
`“[A] patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely
`
`because the patentee claims priority.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1276
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011). A patentee must, instead, “demonstrate that the claims
`
`meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120.” Id. As part of this analysis,
`
`patentee must show that “each application in the chain leading back to the
`
`earlier application” complies “with the written description requirement of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1997).
`
`
`
`In asserting benefit to the priority date of the ’812 application, Patent
`
`Owner provides no analysis demonstrating that claims 8, 11, 13, and 14, 1 as
`
`a whole, are adequately supported in the ’812 application, or that adequate
`
`disclosure may be found in each application in the priority chain leading to
`
`the ’812 application. See Prelim. Resp. 12. Accordingly, at this stage of the
`
`proceeding, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner has presented sufficient
`
`evidence or argument to demonstrate that claims 8, 11, 13, and 14 of the
`
`’641 patent, as a whole, are entitled to the March 28, 2000 priority date of
`
`the ’812 application. See NTP, 654 F.3d at 1276.
`
`
`1 As noted below, we determine that Petitioner has presented insufficient
`evidence to demonstrate that claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, and 12 would have been
`obvious over the various asserted combinations of Ohmura, Ahn, Nokia, and
`Galensky. Therefore, we focus our priority analysis on claims 8, 11, 13, and
`14.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01184
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`With respect to the specific limitations of claim 8, Petitioner asserts a
`
`lack of written description support for the following limitation:
`
`. a wireless
`.
`.
`A portable electronic device having
`communication module communicatively coupled
`to
`the
`processor and operable to communicate a streaming audio
`signal that represents a playing of the song to a recipient device
`via a localized communications signaling network in response
`to a selection of a selectable menu item presented on a recipient
`device display . . . .
`
`Ex. 1201, 20:34–40 (emphasis added). In response, Patent Owner argues
`
`that the ’641 patent provides “more than sufficient support” for this claim
`
`element. Prelim. Resp. 19. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that the ’641
`
`patent discloses that an “electronic device”—“correspond[ing] to the
`
`claimed . . . portable electronic device”—may display a radio dial, or “menu
`
`of selectable icons,” on an automobile display, i.e., a “recipient device.” Id.
`
`at 19–21. In support, Patent Owner relies on the following passage in the
`
`’641 patent:
`
`Radio dial 412 may also be displayed as a separate user
`
`interface and in some embodiments, does not require a
`"browsing" environment to view radio dial 412. For example,
`an electronic device, such as a PDA, having a display may
`graphically present radio dial 412 to a user. One example may
`be using electronic device in association with an automobile
`audio system. Electronic device may display radio dial 412 and
`may allow a user to navigate, modify, select, adjust volume,
`access day timer, access phone lists, etc. or perform other
`functions while the electronic device is used in association with
`an automobile sound system. Therefore, radio dial 412 may be
`operable as an application for use with several different types of
`electronic devices (i.e., computer systems, portable computing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01184
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`devices, cellular phones, etc.) operable to display radio dial 412
`and in [s]ome embodiments may be wirelessly communicated
`to an electronic device.
`
`Ex. 1201, 12:25–40 (emphasis added); Prelim. Resp. 20.
`
`
`
`According to Patent Owner, in this passage “[t]he portable device
`
`would be responding to the selection of a feature or option in the Radio Dial
`
`being displayed to the user on the recipient device,” and this passage
`
`therefore “clearly demonstrates” possession of the claim element “in
`
`response to a selection of a selectable menu item presented on a recipient
`
`device display,” as recited in claim 8. Prelim. Resp. 21. We are not
`
`persuaded, however, that the identified disclosures support Patent Owner’s
`
`argument. In particular, in the identified passage it is the “electronic
`
`device,” not the automobile audio system or “recipient device,” which
`
`displays the radio dial to the user. See Ex. 1201, 12:31–35.
`
`
`
`Based on the foregoing, at this stage of the proceeding we are not
`
`persuaded that Patent Owner has demonstrated that claims 8, 11, 13, and 14
`
`of the ’641 patent are entitled to a priority date earlier than the November 9,
`
`2012 filing date of Application No. 13/673,391.2 Thus, Ohmura and Ahn
`
`are available as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`2 In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner will have an opportunity to
`demonstrate that claims 8, 11, 13, and 14 meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
`§ 120, including written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. See
`NTP, 654 F.3d at 1276. In so doing, Patent Owner should address each
`claim as a whole, rather than as a collection of individual claim limitations.
`See Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, 723 F.3d 1336,
`1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (looking to “the claims as a whole rather than as the
`sum of their individual limitations,” when determining compliance with 35
`U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1).
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01184
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`C. Claims 1–3 and 5–14
`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3 and 5–14 would have been obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of Ohmura, Ahn,
`
`Nokia, and Galensky. Pet. 33–55.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Prior Art
`
`a. Ohmura
`
`Ohmura is directed to a system for providing musical content in a
`
`vehicle. Ex. 1203, 1:11–13. Generally, the Ohmura system is composed of
`
`an audio apparatus mounted in a vehicle that communicates with one or
`
`more portable audio apparatuses. Id. at 3:64–4:1. The portable audio
`
`apparatuses have stored music that may be played through the vehicles
`
`speakers, via the audio apparatus. Id. at 3:49–51, 8:19–27. Using a
`
`displayed selectable menu, a user may select music from any of the available
`
`portable devices, which is then communicated wirelessly using a short-
`
`distance data communication system, such as Bluetooth, to the audio
`
`apparatus to be played in real-time through the vehicles speakers. Id. at
`
`9:39–42, 13:21–27, 20:59–67, Fig. 6.
`
`
`
`In the Ohmura system, the audio apparatus may receive and transmit
`
`Internet data using a cellular telephone mounted in the vehicle. Id. at 7:39–
`
`58. For example, in one embodiment a user may select music data from an
`
`“Internet MENU” screen to facilitate the delivery of “new music in the
`
`vehicle.” Id. at 17:23–48.
`
`
`
`
`
`b. Ahn
`
`Ahn relates to online transmission of music data using the Bluetooth
`
`standard. Ex. 1205, Abstract. In the Ahn system, music data may be
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01184
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`streamed from a cellular phone to the car’s audio equipment using “an
`
`asynchronous call path.” Id. ¶¶ 26, 34, 36.
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, and 12
`
`Claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, and 12 each require, inter alia, “a wireless
`
`telephone device.” Ex. 1201, 19:30, 20:47, 21:2. Petitioner concedes that
`
`Ohmura does not disclose a wireless telephone device that is operable to
`
`perform the steps of claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, and 12, but asserts that, because
`
`both “Ahn and Ohmura disclose portable devices that can receive music data
`
`via a wireless communication module,” one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have sought to “advantageously provide” Ohmura’s portable device with the
`
`ability to “directly connect to the Internet using the wireless telephone” in
`
`order to “receive music data.” Pet. 30; see also Ex. 1223 ¶ 40 (testifying
`
`that “it would have been recognized as beneficial for Ohmura’s portable
`
`device to be able to directly connect to the Internet using the wireless
`
`telephone capability in order to receive music data”)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner has not explained adequately why
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add telephone capability
`
`to Ohmura’s portable devices, especially “[g]iven that Ohmura makes no
`
`mention of a cellular phone or use of a cellular phone in its system.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 27–28 (asserting that Dr. Quackenbush’s testimony is conclusory and
`
`unsupported). Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, Ohmura does in fact
`
`disclose the use of a cellular telephone. See Ex. 1203, 7:39–53.
`
`Nevertheless, this cellular telephone exists as a separate device from the
`
`portable apparatuses of Ohmura, and Ohmura discloses that one of the
`
`problems the disclosed system resolves is the ability to play music using the
`
`portable audio apparatus “without the need to download contents data such
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01184
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`as music and conversation from the Internet.” Id. at 3:56–63, 7:48–49,
`
`8:56–63, 17:24–48, Fig. 1 (disclosing portable audio apparatuses 200a and
`
`200b, as well as cellular telephone 27); see also id. at 2:38–48 (noting that
`
`systems using a “wireless telephone line” to receive music data from
`
`external sources may be “unable to reliably receive the music data of the
`
`relevant piece of music”).
`
`
`
`Given that the Ohmura system already includes a separate cellular
`
`telephone, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not explained
`
`sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
`
`“beneficial” or “advantageous” to modify Ohmura’s portable audio
`
`apparatus to include Internet connectivity over a cellular connection. See
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (noting that it is
`
`important to provide some articulated reasoning with rational underpinning
`
`to support the proposed combination of references); ActiveVideo Networks,
`
`Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting
`
`that generic testimony that bears little relation to the specific combination of
`
`prior art elements at issue is not helpful).
`
`
`
`Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, and 12
`
`would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the various asserted
`
`combinations of Ohmura, Ahn, Nokia, and Galensky.
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Claims 8, 11, 13, and 14
`
`Claims 8, 11, 13, and 14, each require, inter alia, a “portable
`
`electronic device” that is operable to communicate a streaming audio signal
`
`over an asynchronous channel. See, e.g., Ex. 1201, 20:30–45. Petitioner
`
`contends that claims 8 and 11 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01184
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`§ 103(a) over Ohmura and Ahn and claims 13 and 14 would have been
`
`obvious over Ohmura, Ahn, and Nokia. Pet. 49–59. Petitioner provides
`
`detailed claim charts and the testimony of Dr. Quackenbush in support of its
`
`obviousness contentions. Id.; Ex. 1223 ¶¶ 106–113, 122–127, 131–140.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has not demonstrated that
`
`claims 8, 11, 13, and 14 would have been obvious over Ohmura and Ahn
`
`because Petitioner never asserts that streaming an audio signal was known in
`
`the art or that it would have been “routine” to use an asynchronous channel
`
`to do so. Prelim. Resp. 26–27. As noted by Petitioner, however, Ohmura
`
`and Ahn both utilize the Bluetooth standard to stream an audio signal. Pet.
`
`38–39; Ex. 1203, 9:39–42, 13:20–26, 20:59–63, 25:52, Fig. 4 (disclosing
`
`Bluetooth communication and noting that audio is output to the speakers in
`
`“real-time”); Ex. 1205 ¶¶ 36, 37, 58 (noting that “streaming music data”
`
`may be reproduced before all the corresponding data are received). In
`
`addition, Ahn discloses that Bluetooth streaming is conducted over an
`
`asynchronous data channel and the ’641 patent itself concedes that
`
`asynchronous wireless communication was “conventional” in the art. Ex.
`
`1205 ¶¶ 34, 36 (streaming an audio signal over an asynchronous channel
`
`using Bluetooth); Ex. 1201, 6:31–39 (noting that wireless communication
`
`using an asynchronous channel was “conventional”). Given these
`
`disclosures, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.
`
`
`
`Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 8 and 11 would have been
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ohmura and Ahn, and that claims 13
`
`and 14 would have been obvious over Ohmura, Ahn, and Nokia.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01184
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the reasons stated above, we institute an inter partes review as set
`
`forth in the Order. At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final
`
`determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims or
`
`any underlying factual or legal issues.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review of
`
`the ’641 patent is hereby instituted on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`Claims 8 and 11 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ohmura
`
`and Ahn; and
`
`
`
`Claims 13 and 14 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ohmura,
`
`Ahn, and Nokia;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds
`
`identified above and no other grounds are authorized; and
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`
`partes review of the ’641 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 trial.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01184
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`PETITIONERS:
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`Gabrielle E. Higgins
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`Steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`Gabrielee.higgins@ropesgray.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ryan M. Schultz
`Thomas R. DeSimone
`ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
`rmschultz@rkmc.com
`trdesimone@rkmc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`