`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`UBISOFT, INC. AND UBISOFT ENTERTAINMENT SA
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GUITAR APPRENTICE, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent No. 8,586,849
` ____________
`
`
`
`
`
` PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,586,849
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,463,245
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.   INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1  
`II.  SUMMARY OF THE ‘849 PATENT ....................................................................... 1  
`A.   Description of the Alleged Invention of the ‘849 Patent ........................................ 1  
`B.   Summary of the Prosecution History of the ‘849 Patent ........................................ 2  
`III.  REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ........ 4  
`A.   Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................ 4  
`B.   Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested . 4  
`1.   The Grounds For Challenge ..................................................................................... 4  
`2.   Level of Skill of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................ 5  
`3.   Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................ 5  
`   “Proficiency Sensing Module Effective To …” ............................................... 6  
`(a)   “Mode Control Module Effective To …” ........................................................ 7  
`(b)   “Proficiency Level of the User” .......................................................................... 8  
`(c)   Defining/determining user segments based on the proficiency level of the
`user ....................................................................................................................... 9  
`IV.  THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS OF THE ‘849 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ........................................ 10  
`A.   Lee Anticipates Claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
` ....................................................................................................................................10  
`B.   Epstein Anticipates Claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 Under 35 U.S.C. §§
`102(a) and (e) ............................................................................................................32  
`C.   Parks Anticipates Claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 Under 35 U.S.C. §
`102(b) .........................................................................................................................44  
`D.   Lee Renders Claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) .........................................................................................................................57  
`V.   MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ................................... 58  
`A.   Real Party-In-Interest and Related Matters .............................................................58  
`B.   Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ....................................59  
`C.   Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................................59  
`VI.  CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 59  
`
`(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,586,849
`
`Ubisoft, Inc. and Ubisoft Entertainment SA (collectively “Petitioner”) requests an
`
`Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 (collectively, the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,586,849 (“the ‘849 Patent”) issued on
`
`November 19, 2013 to Gabriel Smith (“Applicant” or “Patent Owner”). Ex. 1001, ‘849
`
`Patent.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ‘849 PATENT
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ‘849 Patent
`
`The ‘849 patent describes a “progressive musical instruction method” whereby “a
`
`user learns to play a guitar by playing a gradually increasing number of segments (e.g.,
`
`notes or chords) within a musical performance, as provided by the system in accordance
`
`with a determined user proficiency.” Ex. 1001, ‘849 patent at 1:42-47. The disclosed media
`
`system stores in memory songs that are broken up into segments (i.e., notes and/or
`
`chords). Id. at 4:1-9. There are two types of segments: host segments and user segments.
`
`Id. at 2:59-65, 4:9-11, 6:44-61, Abstract. For each song, certain segments are “defined as
`
`host segments” that are played by the media system, with the “remainder of the segments
`
`defined as user segments.” Id. at 4:9-13. During host segments the media system
`
`simulates the sounds produced by each musical instrument associated with the song in
`
`addition to the sounds produced by the user’s instrument. Id. at 2:62-65, 7:15-28. During
`
`user segments, the media system “mutes only the instrument being played by the user
`
`during the user segments” and provides graphical representations of guitar fret boards to
`
`
`
` 1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,586,849
`instruct the user of the proper notes or chords to be played. Id. at 2:61-65, 7:29-43, 5:7-9,
`
`Figs. 8-14. The media system stores multiple versions (referred to as “iterations” or
`
`“sets”) of each song in memory, each version containing different allocations of
`
`notes/chords to be played by the media system (“host”) and notes/chords to be played
`
`by the user. Id. at 4:34-36; Figs. 6a-6d; 4:13-21 (in FIG. 6a-6d, the media system plays the
`
`entire song in “SET 0,” while the user plays the entire song in “SET ‘N’”).
`
`The particular set or iteration to be played, however, can be selected by the user,
`
`can be predetermined as stored within the system, or can be determined by the media
`
`system “in accordance with various criteria.” Id. at 4:34-37. One such “criteria”
`
`contemplated is “the proficiency level of the user,” which the ‘849 patent states is
`
`determined by receiving signals from the musical instrument played by the user, and
`
`comparing them with “expected signals for corresponding segments of previous
`
`iterations of the musical performance” by using “software (e.g., a user proficiency sensing
`
`module 22f).” Id. at 3:54-67. The specification states only that “[c]ircuitry and software
`
`for such signal reception and processing is presently known to those of skill in the art,
`
`and as particular structure for performing the same is not required for the media system
`
`10 of the present invention further description herein may be omitted.” Id. at 3:53-67.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ‘849 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent App. No. 13/553,310 that resulted in the ‘849 Patent was filed on July
`
`19, 2012 as a continuation of U.S. App. No. 13/351,345, which was filed on January 17,
`
`2012 (now U.S. Patent No. 8,481,838) as a continuation of U.S. App. No. 12/902,577,
`
`
`
` 2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,586,849
`which was filed on October 12, 2010 (now U.S. Patent No. 8,119,896), which claims
`
`priority from U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/360,002, which was filed on June 30, 2010.
`
`Ex. 1001, ‘849 Patent. The as-filed application included 20 as-filed claims. Ex. 1002, ‘849
`
`Patent File History at As-Filed Application. The USPTO issued a non-final office action on
`
`January 24, 2013 rejecting all pending claims 1-20 as being indefinite stating: “it is not
`
`clear as to what a ‘host segment’ or a ‘user segment’ is, or what distinguishes one from
`
`another.” Id. at Non-Final Rejection dated 1/24/2013, p. 2.
`
`In an amendment dated July 16, 2013, Applicant amended pending claims 1-15
`
`and 17-20. Id. at Amendment dated 7/16/2013, pp. 2-10. Namely, Applicant removed
`
`the term “host segment” from the claims and stated: “Host segments may generally be
`
`described as the ‘non-user’ segments of the plurality of musical segments in a musical
`
`performance.” Id. at p. 12. Applicant amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17 “to more
`
`particularly define ‘user segments’ within the scope of the invention. While all ‘musical
`
`segments’ comprise one or more notes or chords, the user segments may be defined as
`
`further having one or more associated display images for musical instruction and
`
`prompting a user to play the corresponding one or more notes or chords.” Id. at p. 11.
`
`Applicant also amended claims 1 and 20 to replace the term “pressed” with the term
`
`“engaged.” Id. at p. 13. Finally, Applicant replaced the term “prompting” with the term
`
`“instructing” in claim 1. Id. at p. 13.
`
`The USPTO issued a notice of allowance on October 15, 2013, allowing claims 1-
`
`20 “for the reasons set forth in Applicant’s response of 7/16/13.” Id. at Notice of
`
`
`
` 3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,586,849
`Allowance dated 10/15/2013. The ‘849 Patent issued on November 19, 2013.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘849 Patent is available for IPR and that the Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims of the ‘849 Patent.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner states: (1) Petitioner is not the owner of the ‘849 Patent; (2)
`
`Petitioner has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the ‘849
`
`Patent; and (3) this Petition is filed less than one year after the Petitioner was served with
`
`a complaint alleging infringement of the ‘849 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`
`In view of the prior art, evidence, and claims charts, claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, 14, 16-18
`
`and 20 of the ‘849 Patent are unpatentable and should be cancelled. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(1).
`
`1.
`
`The Grounds For Challenge
`
`Based on the prior art references identified below, IPR of the Challenged Claims
`
`should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ‘849 Patent
`Claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 are anticipated under §102(e) by U.S. Patent
`Publication No. 2011/0003638 to Lee et al. (“Lee”) [Ex. 1003]
`
`Claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 are anticipated under §§102(a) and (e) by U.S.
`Patent Publication No. 2010/0137049 to Epstein (“Epstein”) [Ex. 1004]
`
`Claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 are anticipated under §102(b) by U.S. Patent
`
`
`
` 4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,586,849
`Publication No. 2008/0200224 to Parks (“Parks”) [Ex. 1005]
`
`Claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 are obvious under §103(a) over Lee [Ex. 1003]
`
`Section IV identifies where each element of the Challenged Claims is found in the
`
`prior art patents. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the supporting
`
`evidence relied upon to support the challenges are provided above and the relevance of
`
`the evidence to the challenges raised are provided in Section IV. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).
`
`Exhibits 1001 – 1011 are also attached.
`
`2.
`
`Level of Skill of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to which
`
`‘849 Patent claims priority (June 30, 2010) would have had at minimum a bachelors
`
`degree in electrical engineering, computer science, physics, mathematics, or a related field
`
`or an equivalent number of years of working experience, in addition to one to two years
`
`of software programming experience. Ex. 1006, Declaration of Dr. Michael Zyda (“Zyda
`
`Decl.”) at ¶17.
`
`3.
`
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`
`A claim subject to IPR receives the “broadest reasonable construction in light of
`
`the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Unless
`
`otherwise noted below, Petitioner proposes, for purposes of IPR only, that the claim
`
`terms of the ‘849 Patent are presumed to take on their ordinary and customary meaning
`
`that the term would have to one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim construction
`
`analysis is not, and should not be viewed as, a concession by Petitioner as to the proper
`
`
`
` 5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,586,849
`scope of any claim term in any litigation. These assumptions are not a waiver of any
`
`argument in any litigation that claim terms in the ‘849 Patent are indefinite or otherwise
`
`invalid or unpatentable. For example, Petitioners note that the challenged claims are
`
`directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and lack supporting written
`
`description or enablement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`
`(a)
`
`“Proficiency Sensing Module Effective To …”
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends that the “proficiency sensing module” limitation of claims 9-
`
`16 fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, and is properly construed under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112, ¶6. The term “module” is a non-structural term that is simply a substitute for the
`
`term “means” coupled to a function without any structure that performs the function.
`
`Supplementary Examination Guidelines, 76 Fed. Reg. 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011); MPEP §
`
`2181(I)(A). The term “proficiency sensing module” is mentioned only twice in the ‘849
`
`specification, and is described as a “structural means” for performing the functions. Ex.
`
`1001, ‘849 patent at 3:18-28 (“The program module 22 may in various embodiments
`
`include or otherwise be defined as any number of combinations of processor-readable
`
`instruction modules (defined in FIG. 5 without limitation as . . . a user proficiency
`
`sensing module 22f) which perform the functions, and a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art of software programming would conceive of numerous structural means for
`
`producing the same executable results.”)(Emphasis added); see also id. at 3:57-67.
`
`However, no “structural means” are ever described in the ‘849 specification for
`
`performing any function associated with a “proficiency sensing module,” and the
`
`
`
` 6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,586,849
`specification goes so far as to state that a “particular structure” is “not required” and is
`
`expressly “omitted” from the patent disclosure. Id. at 3:57-67. There is no structure, flow
`
`chart, process or algorithm disclosed in the ‘849 patent to perform the stated functions.
`
`Therefore, §112, ¶6 should apply and the claim term is indefinite under §112. However,
`
`because validity challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are not available in IPR petitions, and
`
`in the event that the Board finds that §112, ¶6 does not apply, Petitioner demonstrates
`
`that the claimed functions performed through processor-readable software instructions
`
`are described in the prior art below and are unaptentable.
`
`
`(b)
`
`“Mode Control Module Effective To …”
`
`
`
`Petitioner also contends that the “mode control module” limitation of claims 9-16
`
`should be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6. The term “mode control module” is only
`
`mentioned twice in the specification, and is described as a “structural means” for
`
`performing the functions. Ex. 1001, ‘849 patent at 3:18-28; see also id. at 7:44-50. However,
`
`no “structural means” are ever described in the ‘849 specification for performing any
`
`functions associated with the claimed “mode control module.” In fact, the specification
`
`and the claim language are at odds with each other, as they each describe different
`
`functions that are purportedly performed by the “mode control module.” Compare Ex.
`
`1001 at Claim 9 (“a mode control module effective to define one or more of the plurality
`
`of musical segments . . . as user segments based upon one or more criteria including the
`
`determined proficiency level of the user and a performance iteration,” and “in successive
`
`iterations . . . determine whether the proficiency level of the user warrants increasing the
`
`
`
` 7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,586,849
`number of user segments”) with id. at 7:20-37 (disclosing that the “mode control module”
`
`designates one of two operating modes – (1) simulating sounds of the user-selected
`
`instrument during host segments and user segments, and (2) muting the sounds of the
`
`user-selected instrument during user segments). There is no structure, flow chart, process
`
`or algorithm disclosed in the ‘849 patent to perform the stated functions. Therefore,
`
`§112, ¶6 should apply and the claim term is indefinite under §112. However, because
`
`validity challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are not available in IPR petitions, and in the
`
`event that the Board finds that §112, ¶6 does not apply, Petitioner demonstrates that the
`
`claimed functions performed through processor-readable software instructions are
`
`described in the prior art below and are unaptentable.
`
`(c)
`
`
`
`“Proficiency Level of the User”
`
`
`
`The ‘849 patent intentionally omits a description of how “user proficiency” is
`
`determined. Ex. 1001, ‘849 patent at 3:57-67 (“The received signals may be processed
`
`using software (e.g., a user proficiency sensing module 22 f) by the system 10 in
`
`comparison with expected signals for corresponding segments of previous iterations of
`
`the musical performance for determining user proficiency. Circuitry and software for
`
`such signal reception and processing is presently known to those of skill in the art, and as
`
`particular structure for performing the same is not required for the media system 10 of
`
`the present invention further description herein may be omitted.”). The ‘849 patent also
`
`does not disclose how any determined “user proficiency” is translated into a
`
`corresponding “proficiency level of the user.” Because challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`
`
` 8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,586,849
`are not available in IPR petitions, Petitioner submits dictionary definitions of the terms
`
`“proficiency,” “proficient,” and “level” as evidence of the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the terms. Ex. 1007, Definition of “Proficiency” (“the state of being
`
`proficient; skill; expertness”); Ex. 1007, Definition of “Proficient” (“an expert”); Ex. 1008,
`
`Definition of “Level” (“17. an extent, measure, or degree of intensity, achievement, etc.: a
`
`high level of sound; an average level of writing skill.”). Accordingly, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the term “proficiency level of the user” should at least include “an
`
`extent, measure, or degree of the user’s skill or expertness.”
`
` Defining/determining user segments based on the (d)
`
`
`proficiency level of the user
`
`
`
`Each of
`
`independent claims 1, 9, and 17
`
`recite
`
`the concepts of
`
`determining/identifying a proficiency level of the user based on signals received
`
`electrically from a guitar played by the user. As discussed above in Section III.B.3(c), the
`
`‘849 patent fails to disclose how any determined “user proficiency” is translated into a
`
`corresponding “proficiency level of the user.” Each of claims 1, 9, and 17 also recite the
`
`concept of defining/determining user segments based on the proficiency level of the
`
`user. Ex. 1001, ‘849 patent at Claim 1 (“defining [] use segments based on criteria
`
`comprising a proficiency level of the user”); Claim 9 (“define [] user segments based
`
`upon [] criteria including the determined proficiency level of the user”); Claim 17
`
`(“determining a number of user segments [] based on criteria comprising the proficiency
`
`level of the user”). Further, claim 8 (dependent from claim 1) and claim 16 (dependent
`
`
`
` 9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,586,849
`from claim 9) expressly state: “wherein the proficiency level of the user is user-
`
`selectable.” The ‘849 patent further discloses that the disclosed systems/methods may
`
`“determine whether adjustment of the segments is warranted based on the detected or
`
`user-provided proficiency level of the user.” Id. at 8:32-42; see also id. at 4:34-41 (“An
`
`initial set 32 for use in a particular session may be … determined by the system 10 in
`
`accordance with … the proficiency level of the user (as selected by the user or as
`
`determined by the system) ….”); 6:60-67. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, each of claims 1, 9, and 17 require that a proficiency level be determined
`
`by the system (based on received guitar signals), but the determination/definition of user
`
`segments may be based on either the determined proficiency level or a user-selectable
`
`proficiency level.
`
`IV. THERE
`IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE
`‘849 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`
`
`
`The following prior art references disclose each limitation of the Challenged
`
`Claims. As such, the Challenged Claims are unpatentable. Included in the claim charts
`
`below are exemplary citations to the prior art references.
`
`A.
`
`Lee Anticipates Claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 Under 35 U.S.C. §
`102(e)
`
`Lee was filed on May 7, 2010, claims priority to a provisional application (App.
`
`No. 61/222,909) filed July 2, 2009, and qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Ex.
`
`1003, Lee; see also Ex. 1009, App. No. 61/222,909. Lee discloses a system and method of
`
`
`
` 10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,586,849
`providing musical instruction for playing a guitar in a “stepwise and progressive manner.”
`
`Ex. 1003, Lee at [0173]-[0174], Fig. 16. Namely, Lee discloses that a user selects a musical
`
`piece to perform during a session. Id. at Abstract, [0060], [0195]. Each musical piece
`
`includes musical events (e.g., notes, chords) and associated performance cues that, when
`
`displayed, indicate the required notes or chords to be played by the user. Id. at [0056]-
`
`[0059], Figs. 5-7B. For each session, the music instruction system defines the number of
`
`notes/chords that the user will be instructed to play for the session based on a difficulty
`
`level (e.g., beginner, novice, skilled, advanced, prodigy) of the session. Id. at [0195],
`
`[0105]-[0106], [0173]-[0174]. The difficulty level of the session can either be static or the
`
`system can dynamically adjust the difficulty level based on the user’s performance. Id. at
`
`[0106], [0161]. During the session, the user’s performance of musical events is evaluated
`
`and compared to expected musical events. Id. at [0062], [0137]. Based on the comparison,
`
`the music instruction system provides feedback, such as scores, statistics, and a user level
`
`(e.g., beginner, easy, novice, skilled, difficult, advanced, prodigy), both during and upon
`
`completion of the musical piece. Id. at [0064]-[0065], Fig. 18. Lee expressly discloses that
`
`the determined “user level” may assist the user in selecting a difficulty level for a
`
`subsequent session. Id. at [0183]. Further, the system is capable of, from session to
`
`session, gradually increasing the number of notes/chords that the user is required to play
`
`until the user is required to correctly play every note/chord of a musical piece. Id. at
`
`[0173]-[0174]; Ex. 1006, Zyda Decl. at ¶¶25-29. Finally, Lee discloses that each musical
`
`piece includes a prerecorded “expert performance audio track” performed on the same
`
`
`
` 11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,586,849
`type of musical instrument as the user’s instrument and that the “expert performance
`
`audio track” may be muted during the portions of the song that are played by the user.
`
`Compare Ex. 1001, ‘849 Patent at 7:15-43 with Ex. 1003, Lee at [0061], [0068], Fig. 4.
`
`Claims
`1. A media
`system
`for
`progressive
`in
`instruction
`the playing of a
`guitar,
`the
`system
`comprising:
`
`Anticipated by Lee (Ex. 1003)
`Lee discloses a system and method of providing musical instruction for
`playing a guitar in a “stepwise and progressive manner.” Based on the
`user’s performances, the system can, from session to session, gradually
`increase the number of notes/chords that the user is required to play
`until the user is required to play every note/chord of a musical piece.
`“The term ‘music instruction system,’ as used herein, is intended to
`be broadly interpreted to include a device or a system capable of
`providing musical instruction for playing a musical instrument. Ex.
`1003, Lee at [0028]; see generally id. at [0028]-[0029], Figs. 1, 2.
`“Music instruction system 115 allows beginners, as well as more
`advanced users, to hear an expert rendition of a musical piece being
`played in synchrony with the user's performance, even if the user
`does not perform all of the musical events. For example, when the
`difficulty level of a musical piece is set to a low level, the user may be
`required to play only one out of every N musical events, where
`N>1. If that single musical event is played correctly, the user may
`experience the other N-1 notes being played perfectly, by hearing
`the expert performance. In another example, when the difficulty
`level is set to a high level (e.g., an expert level), the user may be
`required to correctly play each of N musical events. …
`According to such an instructional approach, music instruction
`system 115 may allow the user to be introduced to his/her musical
`instrument in a stepwise and progressive manner, which may begin
`with the user playing some musical events of a musical piece and
`guiding the user to ultimately play all of the musical events of the
`musical piece. In this way, an expert proficiency level is not
`immediately required, and the user may gradually become familiar
`with his/her musical instrument, the musical piece, and improve
`their musical ability. In such an approach, music instruction system
`115 may provide a highly enjoyable learning experience for the user.
`As the user progresses and gains skill from session to session, the
`value of N may be gradually reduced to 1.” Id. at [0173]-[0174]; also
`
`
`
` 12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,586,849
`id. at [0161]-[0162], [0104]-[0106], [0177], [0183], Fig. 18.
`“[M]usic instruction system 115 may mute the expert performance
`audio track and provide only the user's performance.” Id. at [0166];
`generally [0068]-[0069], [0166], [0170].
`
`
`
`[1(a)] a non-
`transitory
`processor-
`readable
`memory
`medium having
`software
`residing
`
`
`Lee discloses that software instructions are read from memory/storage
`210, and executed by processing system 205 in order to, for example,
`provide user interfaces instructing the user to play an instrument,
`detect fundamental frequencies of the user’s instrument signal, and
`score and provide feedback to the user.
`“Memory/storage 210 may include a memory and/or a secondary
`storage. . . . Memory/storage 210 may store data, applications 215,
`and/or instructions related to the operation of music instruction
`
`
`
` 13
`
`

`

`the
`
`thereon,
`software
`executable by a
`processor
`to
`direct
`the
`performance of
`
`[1(b)]
`generating
`audio
`signals
`corresponding
`to prerecorded
`sounds
`from
`one or more
`musical
`instruments
`associated with
`a
`predetermined
`musical
`performance,
`the
`one
`or
`more musical
`instruments
`comprising
`guitar,
`
`a
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,586,849
`
`system 115.
`Applications 215 may include software that provides various
`services, functions, user interfaces, or the like. According to an
`exemplary implementation, applications 215 may include a music
`instruction application that provides one or more of the processes
`related to instructing a user to play a musical instrument. For
`example, theses processes may include providing user interfaces,
`detecting fundamental frequencies, scoring, providing feedback to
`the user, and/or other functions associated with music instruction
`system 115, as described herein. Applications 215 may be stored in
`memory/storage 210.” Id. at [0044]-[0046].
`“As described herein, according to an exemplary embodiment,
`music instrument system 115 may perform one or more processes in
`response to processing system 205 executing software instructions
`contained in a computer-readable medium, such as memory/storage
`210. The software instructions may be read from memory/storage
`210 or received from another device via communication interface
`220. The software instructions may cause processing system 205 to
`perform processes described herein.” Id. at [0050]; see also id. at
`[0033], [0042], [0051], Fig. 2.
`Processing system 205 of Lee executes software instructions (e.g.,
`musical piece data manager 315) manages musical piece data and plays
`audio data including accompaniment and expert performance audio
`tracks (i.e., prerecorded sounds from a guitar). In one embodiment,
`feedback manager 325 may mute the expert performance audio track
`and plays the user’s performance.
`“The term ‘musical data,’ as used herein, is intended to be broadly
`interpreted to include data used by the music instruction system. By
`way of example, but not limited thereto, musical data may include
`audio data (e.g., accompaniment audio tracks, expert performance
`audio tracks, audio performance cue data, audio feedback data,
`audio waveform data, etc.),” Id. at [0032]; see also id. at [0034], [0074]-
`[0078], [0199], Fig. 4.
`“Musical piece data manager 315 may play various auditory musical
`piece data (e.g., accompaniment audio tracks, expert performance
`audio tracks) associated with a musical piece. For example, an
`accompaniment audio track may include a recording of an
`accompaniment performance of a musical piece and an expert
`performance audio track may include a recording of an expert
`
`
`
` 14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,586,849
`performance of a musical piece performed on the same type of
`musical instrument as the user's musical instrument. According to an
`exemplary embodiment, as described further below, feedback
`manager 325 may govern the playing of expert performance audio
`tracks by musical piece data manager 315 during a session. For
`example, music instruction system 115 may use the playing of the
`expert performance audio tracks as a feedback mechanism to the
`user when the user correctly performs the musical piece. Examples
`of musical piece data are described further below
`in this
`description.” Id. at [0061]; also id. at [0046], [0050]-[0051].
`“According to yet another exemplary implementation, when the user
`correctly performs the musical event(s), feedback manager 325 may
`mute the auditory musical piece data (e.g., the expert performance
`audio track) and play the user's performance.” Id. at [0068]; see
`generally id. at [0068]-[0069], [0162], [0166], [0170].
`“User 105 may be a person that performs with musical instrument
`110. In this example, musical instrument 110 may correspond to a
`string instrument, such as a guitar.” Id. at [0038]; also id. at [0029],
`[0085], [0094], Fig. 1, 5, 16.
`Lee discloses that a musical piece includes musical events (i.e., musical
`segments), each of which includes a guitar note or chord.
`“The term ‘musical piece,’ as used herein, is intended to be broadly
`interpreted to include an assembly of musical events. By way of
`example, but not limited thereto, a musical piece may correspond to
`a song (an
`instrumental with or without
`lyrics), a musical
`composition (e.g., a sonata, a concerto, etc.), a vocal piece, a
`fingering exercise, a musical scale, a beat or a rhythm, chord
`fingerings, a harmonic progression, or the like.
`The term ‘musical event,’ as used herein, is intended to be broadly
`interpreted to include a sound producing event. By way of example,
`but not limited thereto, a musical event may correspond to a note, a
`vocal utterance (e.g., speech, etc.), or a percussive sound.” Id. at
`[0030]-[0031]; see also id. at [0058] (“performance cues may include
`fingering positions for musical events (e.g., chords, melody notes,
`etc.) in correspondence to the user’s musical instrument”); generally
`id. at [0056]-[0058], [0060], [0087].
`See [0173]-[0174] (reproduced above for the preamble of Claim 1);
`see also id. at [0080] [0094], [0104]-[0106], Figs. 5, 6, 11.
`a A user may select a musical piece to play for a particular session (i.e.,
`
`a
`of
`
`the
`[1(c)]
`predetermined
`musical
`performance
`comprising
`plurality
`musical
`segments each
`further
`comprising one
`or more guitar
`not