throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 11
`
`
` Entered: July 16, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA), Inc.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00136
`Patent 7,359,884
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MICHAEL W. KIM, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1039, p. 1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00136
`Patent 7,359,884
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA), Inc. (“ZTE”) filed a petition requesting
`
`an inter partes review of claims 1-11, 13-22, 27-37, 39-48, and 53-70 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,359,884 (Ex. 1001, “the ’884 patent”). (Paper 4, “Pet.”) The
`
`patent owner, ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. (“ContentGuard”) filed a preliminary
`
`response. (Paper 9, “Prel. 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 as follows:
`
`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 patent owner preliminary response,
`
`we determine that the information presented in the petition establishes that there is
`
`a reasonable likelihood that ZTE would prevail with respect to claims 1-8, 14-22,
`
`and 55-62 of the ’884 patent. Accordingly, we grant the petition and institute an
`
`inter partes review of these claims.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`ZTE indicates that the ’884 patent is involved in co-pending litigation
`
`captioned ContentGuard Holdings Inc. v. ZTE Corp. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-
`
`01226 (S.D. Cal.). (Pet. 1.)
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1039, p. 2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00136
`Patent 7,359,884
`
`
`ZTE also filed five other petitions seeking inter partes review of the
`
`following patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072 (IPR2013-00133); U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,225,160 (IPR2013-00134); U.S. Patent No. 6,963,859 (IPR2013-00137); U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,139,736 (IPR2013-00138); and U.S. Patent No. 7,269,576 (IPR2013-
`
`00139). (Pet. 1.)
`
`B. The ’884 Patent
`
`The subject matter of the ’884 patent relates to controlling use of content
`
`through usage rights associated with the content. (Ex. 1001, 1:19-23.) According
`
`to the ’884 patent, an issue concerning the widespread distribution of digital
`
`content is providing the ability to enforce the intellectual property rights during the
`
`distribution and use of the digital content. (Ex. 1001, 1:25-31.) This issue arises
`
`due to the nature of digital content, which easily is copied, modified, and
`
`redistributed unprotected with high quality. (Ex. 1001, 1:43-47.) According to the
`
`’884 patent, technologies for resolving these problems are referred to as Digital
`
`Rights Management (“DRM”). (Ex. 1001, 1:31-32.) Issues to be considered in
`
`effecting DRM include authentication, authorization, accounting, payment and
`
`financial clearing rights, rights specification, rights verification, rights
`
`enforcement, and document protection issues, to name a few. (Ex. 1001, 1:33-37.)
`
`One such DRM system, includes repositories, where a predetermined set of usage
`
`transaction steps define a protocol used by the repositories for enforcing usage
`
`rights associated with the content. (Ex. 1001, 1:49-55.) The usage rights persist
`
`with the content, and can permit various manners of use of the content, such as a
`
`right to view, print or display the content, a right to use the content only once, a
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1039, p. 3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00136
`Patent 7,359,884
`
`
`right to distribute or redistribute the content. (Ex. 1001, 1:55-60.) Such usage
`
`rights can be made contingent on payment or other conditions. (Ex. 1001, 1:60-
`
`61.) According to the ’884 patent, the disclosed invention expresses usage rights
`
`for content based on modulated or varied signals or graphical representations of the
`
`usage rights. (Ex. 1001, 1:65-2:2.)
`
`C. Exemplary Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 27 are independent claims.
`
`Independent claim 1 is directed to a computer implemented method, while
`
`independent claim 27 is directed to a system. Claims 2-11, 13-22, and 55-62
`
`directly or indirectly depend from claim 1, and claims 28-37, 39-48, 53-54, and 63-
`
`70 directly or indirectly depend from claim 27. Claims 1 and 27 are exemplary of
`
`the claimed subject matter of the ’884 patent, and are reproduced as follows, with
`
`limitations key to our analysis bolded for emphasis:
`
`A computer implemented method for processing a rights
`1.
`expression for association with an item for use in a digital rights
`management system for controlling the use of the item in accordance
`with the rights expression, said method comprising:
`specifying in a license a rights expression in an original format;
`
`and
`
`generating an intermediate format for said rights expression
`based on at least one of syntax information and semantics
`information associated with said original format,
`wherein said rights expression specifies a manner of use of said
`item for enforcement on a device, and
`said rights expression is encoded with a grammar-based
`expression language, and
`said intermediate format is for controlling the use of said item
`in accordance with the manner of use specified in said rights
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1039, p. 4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00136
`Patent 7,359,884
`
`
`expression.
`
`27. A system for processing a rights expression for association
`with an item for use in a digital rights management system for
`controlling the use of the item in accordance with the rights
`expression, said system comprising:
`a license specifying a rights expression in an original format;
`
`and
`
`means for generating an intermediate format for said rights
`expression based on at least one of syntax information and
`semantics
`information associated with said original format,
`grammar-based language
`wherein said rights expression specifies a manner of use of said
`item for enforcement on a device, and
`said rights expression is encoded with a grammar-based
`expression language, and
`said intermediate format is for controlling the use of said item
`in accordance with the manner of use specified in said rights
`expression.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`
`
`ZTE relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`
`(Ex. 1013)
`
`Safadi
`
`Erickson et al.
`
`Messerges et al. U.S. Pat. Pub. 2002/0157002 A1
`Oct. 24, 2002
` U.S. Pat. Pub. 2003/0126086
`
`Jul. 3, 2003 (Ex. 1014)
`U.S. Pat. Pub. 2003/0046093 A1
`
`Mar. 6, 2003
`(Ex. 1015)
`U.S. Patent 5,444,779 Aug. 22, 1995
`(Ex. 1016)
`Daniele
`Stefik et al. U.S. Patent 5,629,980 May 13, 1997
`(Ex. 1017)
`Hall et al. U.S. Patent 5,920,861
`Jul. 6, 1999 (Ex. 1018)
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1039, p. 5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00136
`Patent 7,359,884
`
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds
`
`ZTE contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`1. Claims 1-8, 14-20, 27-34, 40-46, and 53-70 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) as anticipated by Messerges;1
`
`2. Claims 1-3, 5, 14, 16-20, 27-29, 31, 40, 42-46, 53, and 54 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) as anticipated by Safadi;2
`
`3. Claims 1, 20, 27, 46, 53, and 54 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e)
`
`as anticipated by Erickson;3
`
`
`
`1 The ’884 patent was filed on Mar. 14, 2003, and claims priority to provisional
`application No. 60/363,932, filed Mar. 14, 2002. Messerges was published on Oct.
`24, 2002, and was filed on Aug. 29, 2001. As Messerges was published less than
`one year before the filing date of the ’884 patent, Messerges cannot be prior art to
`the ’884 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Accordingly, even though the Petition
`contends that Messerges is prior art to the ’884 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)
`and/or (e), of these two sections, Messerges is actually only prior art to the ’884
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`2 The ’884 patent was filed on Mar. 14, 2003, and claims priority to provisional
`application No. 60/363,932, filed Mar. 14, 2002. Safadi was published on Jul. 3,
`2003, and was filed on Dec. 31, 2001. As Safadi was published after the filing
`date of the ’884 patent, Safadi cannot be prior art to the ’884 patent under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Accordingly, even though the Petition contends that Safadi is
`prior art to the ’884 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and/or (e), of these two
`sections, Safadi is actually only prior art to the ’884 patent under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`3 The ’884 patent was filed on Mar. 14, 2003, and claims priority to provisional
`application No. 60/363,932, filed Mar. 14, 2002. Erickson was published on Mar.
`6, 2003, and was filed on Dec. 31, 2001. As Erickson was published less than one
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1039, p. 6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00136
`Patent 7,359,884
`
`
`4. Claims 1-8, 14-20, 27-34, 40-46, and 53-70 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Messerges and Safadi;
`
`5. Claims 1, 4-7, 19, 20, 27, 30-33, 45, 46, 53, 54, 61, and 69 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b) as anticipated by Daniele;
`
`6. Claims 1, 4-7, 19, 20, 27, 30-33, 45, 46, 53, 54, 61, and 69 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Daniele and Stefik;
`
`7. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 14, 18-20, 27, 28, 31, 32, 40, 44-46, 53, 54, 61, 62, 69, and
`
`70 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hall;
`
`8. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 14, 18-20, 27, 28, 31, 32, 40, 44-46, 53, 54, 61, 62, 69, and
`
`70 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hall and
`
`Stefik;
`
`9. Claims 9-11, 13, 35-37, and 39 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`obvious over Messerges and Erickson; and
`
`10. Claims 21, 22, 47, and 48 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`obvious over Messerges and Daniele.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`
`
`year before the filing date of the ’884 patent, Erickson cannot be prior art to the
`’884 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Accordingly, even though the Petition
`contends that Erickson is prior art to the ’884 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)
`and/or (e), of these two sections, Erickson is actually only prior art to the ’884
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1039, p. 7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00136
`Patent 7,359,884
`
`
`As a first step in our analysis for determining whether to institute a review,
`
`we determine the meaning of the claims. In an inter partes review, claim terms in
`
`an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Also,
`
`claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips
`
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). An inventor may
`
`provide a contrary definition of the term in the specification, if it is done with
`
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
`
`1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). At the same time, we must be careful not to read a
`
`particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the
`
`claim language is broader than the embodiment. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
`
`1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In rendering our decision, it is necessary to construe several
`
`claim terms.
`
`1.
`
`Syntax
`
`Independent claims 1 and 27 each recite “syntax.” The specification does
`
`not provide a definition of “syntax.” Neither ZTE nor ContentGuard provide a
`
`definition of “syntax.” The Microsoft Computer Dictionary defines “syntax” as
`
`“[t]he grammar of a language; the rules governing the structure and content of
`
`statements.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary 507 (5th ed. Microsoft Press 2002).
`
`The use of “syntax” in the specification is consistent with this definition.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, we regard that definition as the meaning of the claim term
`
`“syntax.”
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1039, p. 8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00136
`Patent 7,359,884
`
`
`2. Means for generating an intermediate format
`
`Independent claim 27 recites “means for generating an intermediate format
`
`for said rights expression based on at least one of syntax information and semantics
`
`information associated with said original format, grammar-based language.” ZTE
`
`proposes that the “means for generating” be construed as “hardware, software, or a
`
`hardware-software combination that performs the localizing, simplifying,
`
`translating, interpreting, canonicalizing, pre-processing, formatting, pruning, or
`
`evaluating processes described in [the ’884] Patent specification.” (Pet. 12-15.)
`
`ContentGuard did not provide a proposed claim construction for the “means for
`
`generating” in the Preliminary Response.
`
`A claim element for a combination may be expressed as a means or a step
`
`for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts
`
`in support thereof, and it shall cover the corresponding structure, material or acts
`
`described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th
`
`paragraph. To determine what is covered by a means-plus-function element, we
`
`look to the specification to identify the corresponding structure, material, or acts
`
`which are described as performing the recited function. 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th
`
`paragraph; In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).
`
`We agree with ZTE that the “means for generating . . .” recited in independent
`
`claim 27 is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
`
`paragraph. (Pet. 13.) Accordingly, we look to the specification of the ’884 patent
`
`to identify the structure, material, or acts which are described as performing the
`
`recited functions.
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1039, p. 9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00136
`Patent 7,359,884
`
`
`The claimed function is “generating an intermediate format for said rights
`
`expression based on at least one of syntax information and semantics information
`
`associated with said original format, grammar-based language.” The following
`
`portions of the specification of the ’884 patent disclose the claimed function:
`
`The exemplary localizer processes 201 can receive a rights expression
`207 in a grammar-based language, such as XrML, and rights
`expression language information 209 including syntax information,
`semantics information. The exemplary localizer processes 201 can
`convert the rights expression 207 into an intermediate format that can
`be referred to as in an exemplary self-contained format 211 based on
`and the grammar-based rights expression language information 209.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 6:45-53; emphasis added.)
`
`In an exemplary embodiment, the exemplary localizer processes 201
`can include devices, components, applications, functions, systems,
`platforms, responsible for assigning
`the semantic meaning of
`keywords, elements, conditions, rights expressions, employed in the
`rights expression 207, for resolving potential ambiguities within the
`rights expression 207, for preprocessing the rights expression 207.
`The exemplary localizer processes 201 can employ the syntax and
`semantics information 209 of the corresponding rights language to
`pre-process the rights expressions 207 to generate the rights
`expression 207 in the exemplary self-contained format 211, which,
`can include the rights expression 207 in an unambiguous form.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 7:57-8:3; emphasis added.) Figure 2 of the specification is shown
`
`below, and illustrates exemplary multi-pass interpretation processes that can be
`
`implemented on DRM systems.
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1039, p. 10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00136
`Patent 7,359,884
`
`
`
`
`All of the above disclosures in the specification show a grammar-based rights
`
`expression, syntax information, and semantics information being input into
`
`localizer 201, and also show localizer 201 outputting a rights expression in a self-
`
`contained format. Based on these disclosures in the specification, the “means for
`
`generating . . .” covers localizer 201 and equivalents thereof.
`
`The specification also discloses that “[t]he exemplary localizer processes
`
`201 [and] the exemplary distributor processes can be implemented in the computer
`
`system 130 of FIG. 1.” (Ex. 1001, 10:63-65.) The specification further discloses
`
`the following:
`
`the exemplary localizer processes 201, the exemplary distributor
`processes 401, the exemplary interpreter processes 403, the exemplary
`simplifier processes 203, and the exemplary translator processes 205,
`can be implemented on one or more of the devices and sub-systems of
`the Digital Rights Management systems of FIGS. 1, 4 and 5.
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1039, p. 11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00136
`Patent 7,359,884
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, 11:2-8; see also 7:7-12). The specification further discloses the
`
`following:
`
`All or a portion of the Digital Rights Management systems of FIGS. 1,
`4 and 5 as described with respect to FIGS. 1-15, can be conveniently
`implemented using one or more general-purpose computer systems,
`microprocessors, digital
`signal processors, micro-controllers,
`programmed according to the teachings of the disclosed exemplary
`embodiments. Appropriate software can be readily prepared by
`programmers of ordinary skill based on the teachings of the disclosed
`exemplary embodiments. In addition, the Digital Rights Management
`systems of FIGS. 1, 4 and 5 can be implemented by the preparation of
`application-specific integrated circuits or by interconnecting an
`appropriate network of component circuits.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 31:22-34.) Accordingly, as localizer 201 is software implemented on a
`
`general purpose computer, the corresponding structure under § 112, sixth
`
`paragraph is not the general purpose computer, but the disclosed algorithm for
`
`performing the claimed function. Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. v.
`
`International Game Technology, 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing
`
`Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2005)) (“computer-
`
`implemented means-plus-function term is limited to the corresponding structure
`
`disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof, and the corresponding
`
`structure is the algorithm”.) The algorithm may be expressed “‘in any
`
`understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow
`
`chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.’” Typhoon Touch
`
`Technologies, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1395 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting
`
`Finisar v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1039, p. 12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00136
`Patent 7,359,884
`
`
`Figure 6 of the specification is shown below, and illustrates exemplary
`
`localizer processes 201 that can be implemented on DRM systems.
`
`
`
`In describing Figure 6, the Specification discloses the following:
`
`In FIG. 6, exemplary canonicalizer processes 601 can resolve
`potential ambiguities within the rights expression 207, based on
`syntax information 607 of the syntax and semantics information 209
`to generate the rights expression 207 in an unambiguous form. In
`addition, the exemplary canonicalizer processes 601 can convert the
`unambiguous rights expression 207 into a canonical form 609 as
`described in greater detail below.
`
`Exemplary pre-processor processes 603 can be employed to process
`the unambiguous rights expression 207 in the canonical form 609
`based on semantics information 611 of the syntax and semantics
`information 209, to generate processing results 613. The processing
`results 613 can include, the unambiguous rights expression 207, a
`context
`table, a semantics
`table,
`the processing
`instructions.
`Exemplary formatter processes 605 can package, process, the
`processing results 613 to generate the rights expression 207 in the
`exemplary self-contained format 211.
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1039, p. 13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00136
`Patent 7,359,884
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, 11:53-12:3.) We discern the following algorithm from Figure 6 and
`
`corresponding portions of the specification: (1) receiving a rights expression;
`
`receiving syntax information; (2) using the syntax information to generate an
`
`unambiguous form of the rights expression; (3) receiving semantics information;
`
`(4) using the semantics information to generate a semantics table and processing
`
`instructions; (5) appending the semantics table and the processing instructions to
`
`the unambiguous form of the rights expression; and (6) processing the semantics
`
`table, the processing instructions, and the unambiguous form of the rights
`
`expression to generate a rights expression in a self-contained format. Accordingly,
`
`we construe the “means for generating” as corresponding to localizer 201 and
`
`equivalents thereof that implement the aforementioned algorithm.
`
`B. Claims 1-8, 14-20, 27-34, 40-46, and 53-70 – Anticipated by Messerges
`
`ZTE contends that claims 1-8, 14-20, 27-34, 40-46, and 53-70 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Messerges. (Pet. 16-24.)
`
`We will address ZTE and ContentGuard’s contentions with respect to each group
`
`of independent claims in turn.
`
`Messerges
`
`Messerges discloses content management systems for securely accessing
`
`digital content. (Ex. 1013, ¶ 1.) According to Messerges, when a user requests
`
`content from a content provider, the requested content is provided from the content
`
`provider as a part of a content package. (Ex. 1013, ¶ 42.) According to Messerges,
`
`the content package may include a rights document 720, an encoded rights table
`
`(ERT) 730, and encrypted content 750. (Id.) According to Messerges, an ERT
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1039, p. 14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00136
`Patent 7,359,884
`
`
`730 is a more efficient representation of the rights document. (Ex. 1013, ¶ 43.)
`
`Specifically, Messerges discloses that the encoded rights table 730 is designed so
`
`that digital usage rights of other rights documents can be transcribed into the
`
`encoded rights table format. (Ex. 1013, ¶ 44.) According to Messerges,
`
`transcribing from one digital rights management language to an encoded rights
`
`table representation may be done using a transcoder. (Id.) According to
`
`Messerges, the transcoder will parse the data from the source language and recode
`
`it to the encoded rights table format or vice-versa. (Id.) According to Messerges,
`
`the encoded rights table 730 is added to the content package 700 by the content
`
`provider 210 to reduce the complexity of enforcing the rules. (Ex. 1013, ¶ 46.)
`
`According to Messerges, by using an encoded rights table, the software on the user
`
`device can be simpler at the expense of a slightly larger content package and some
`
`additional preprocessing steps by the content provider. (Id.)
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`ContentGuard contends Messerges does not disclose “generating an
`
`intermediate format . . . based on at least one of syntax information and semantics
`
`information associated with said original format,” as recited in independent
`
`claim 1. Specifically, ContentGuard contends that in recoding the rights document
`
`from the source language to the encoded rights table format in Messerges, no
`
`“syntax information” or “semantics information” needs to be utilized. We
`
`disagree.
`
`As an initial matter, independent claim 1 recites “generating an intermediate
`
`format . . . based on at least one of syntax information and semantics information
`
`associated with said original format.” (Emphasis added.) As set forth above, we
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1039, p. 15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00136
`Patent 7,359,884
`
`
`construe syntax” as “[t]he grammar of a language; the rules governing the structure
`
`and content of statements.” In recoding the rights document from the source
`
`language to the encoded rights table format, Messerges discloses that the data from
`
`the source language is parsed. (Ex. 1013, ¶ 44.) By parsing the data, Messerges
`
`discloses taking the rules governing the structure and content of statements in the
`
`parsed data into account when recoding the rights document to the encoded rights
`
`table format.
`
`We are persuaded that ZTE has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that
`
`claims 2-8, 14-20, and 55-62 are anticipated by Messerges. (Pet. 20-24.)
`
`Independent Claim 27
`
`ContentGuard contends that Messerges does not disclose a “means for
`
`generating an intermediate format for said rights expression based on at least one
`
`of syntax information and semantics information associated with said original
`
`format, grammar-based language,” as recited in independent claim 27. We agree.
`
`We have construed the “means for generating . . .” as covering localizer 201 and its
`
`equivalents thereof, with localizer 201 implementing the algorithm set forth in
`
`Figure 6 of the specification.
`
`Messerges discloses that the transcoder will parse the data from the source
`
`language and recode it to the encoded rights table format or vice-versa. (Ex. 1013,
`
`¶ 44.) ZTE contends that the transcoder of Messerges corresponds to localizer 201,
`
`the source language corresponds to the recited rights expression, and that the
`
`encoded rights table corresponds to the recited intermediate format. However,
`
`Messerges does not disclose the transcoder performing several steps of the
`
`algorithm set forth in Figure 6 of the specification. For example, the algorithm
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1039, p. 16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00136
`Patent 7,359,884
`
`
`includes “using the semantics information to generate a semantics table and
`
`processing instructions; appending the semantics table and the processing
`
`instructions to the unambiguous form of the rights expression.” ZTE has not
`
`shown how Messerges discloses generating a semantics table, let alone appending
`
`that semantics table to anything to form the encoded rights table.
`
`As claims 28-34, 40-46, and 63-70 depend directly or indirectly from
`
`independent claim 27, ZTE has also not shown a reasonable likelihood that it
`
`would prevail in showing that these claims are anticipated by Messerges.
`
`Conclusion
`
`ZTE has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that
`
`claims 1-8, 14-20, and 55-62 of the ’884 patent are anticipated by Messerges.
`
`ZTE has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
`
`that claims 27-34, 40-46, and 63-70 of the ’884 patent are anticipated by
`
`Messerges.
`
`C. Claims 21-22 and 47-48 – Obvious Over Messerges and Daniele
`
`ZTE contends that claims 21, 22, 47, and 48 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Messerges and Daniele. (Pet. 58-59.) Claims
`
`47 and 48 depend indirectly from independent claim 27. As ZTE has not shown
`
`how Daniele remedies the deficiency of independent claim 27 set forth above, ZTE
`
`has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims
`
`47 and 48 of the ’884 patent are unpatentable over Messerges and Daniele.
`
`For claims 21 and 22, however, we are persuaded by ZTE’s analysis and
`
`supporting evidence. For example, claim 21 recites “wherein said device-specific
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1039, p. 17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00136
`Patent 7,359,884
`
`
`format comprises a graphical representation of said rights expression.” Messerges
`
`is cited for disclosing the device-specific format. (Pet. 21.) Daniele discloses a
`
`method and apparatus for detecting copying of a document protected by a
`
`copyright on a reprograhic device. (Ex. 1016, 1:10-12.) Daniele discloses that
`
`data may be presented on a document using multi-bit binary data symbols encoded
`
`in a two-dimensional code. (Ex. 1016, 6:54-57.) Daniele discloses that such a
`
`self-clocking glyph code faithfully preserves the logical ordering of the bits that
`
`are encoded in its glyphs because the glyphs are written onto and read from a
`
`suitable recording medium in a known order and are in compliance with a
`
`predetermined spatial formatting rule. (Ex. 1016, 6:57-62.)
`
`ContentGuard contends that Daniele is non-analogous art. We disagree.
`
`The ’884 patent is directed to controlling use of content through usage rights
`
`associated with the content. (Ex. 1001, 1:19-21.) Daniele discloses a method and
`
`apparatus for detecting copying of a document protected by a copyright on a
`
`reprograhic device. (Ex. 1016, 1:10-12.) Thus, both the ’884 patent and Daniele
`
`are within the same field of endeavor—namely the technical field of protection of
`
`content rights. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (a reference is
`
`analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of
`
`endeavor as the claimed invention; or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to
`
`the problem faced by the inventor).
`
`Moreover, the ’884 patent is directed to solving problems concerning
`
`unauthorized copying of printed materials. (Ex. 1001, 1:43-47.) Similarly,
`
`Daniele is directed to solving problems concerning user copying and reprinting of
`
`18
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1039, p. 18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00136
`Patent 7,359,884
`
`
`materials that should not be reproduced. (Ex. 1016, 1:23-28.) Accordingly,
`
`Daniele is also reasonably pertinent to a problem identified in the ’884 patent.
`
`ContentGuard further contends that ZTE failed to provide a sufficient
`
`rationale to combine the disclosures of Messerges and Daniele. Specifically,
`
`ContentGuard states:
`
`In alleging that Messerges and Safadi, Daniele and Stefik, Hall and
`Stefik, Messerges and Erickson, and Messerges and Daniele can be
`combined to render obvious various claims of the ’884 Patent, ZTE
`(as well as the Madisetti Declaration) provided only statements that
`either characterize each of the individual references or assert
`conclusions about alleged benefits of the supposed combinations
`without any articulated reasoning for why one of ordinary skill in the
`art would have made each of the alleged combination.
`
`(Prel. Resp. 32-33.) We are not persuaded by ContentGuard’s contention.
`
`ZTE asserts the following rationale to combine:
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
`Messerges and Daniele, at least, because both relate to rights
`management of an item, and both relate to increasing the flexibility of
`a rights management system to use additional means to enforce usage
`rights of an item, e.g., via a glyph. In addition, glyphs provide an
`accurate data structure for preserving the logical ordering of data and
`are thus as another form to enforce usage rights of items. (Daniele,
`6:54-62; see also Madisetti Decl., ¶ 146.)
`
`(Pet. 58-59.) We are persuaded by the opinion of Dr. Madisetti that representing
`
`the device-specific format of Messerges in another form, such as the glyph codes
`
`of Daniele, would have been within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`ZTE has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that
`
`claims 21 and 22 of the ’884 patent are unpatentable over Messerges and Daniele.
`
`19
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1039, p. 19
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00136
`Patent 7,359,884
`
`
`ZTE has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
`
`that claims 47 and 48 of the ’884 patent are unpatentable over Messerges and
`
`Daniele.
`
`D. Claims 9-11, 13, 35-37, and 39 – Obvious Over Messerges and Erickson
`
`ZTE contends that claims 9-11, 13, 35-37, and 39 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Messerges and Erickson. (Pet. 55-58.) Claims
`
`35-37 and 39 depend indirectly from independent claim 27. As ZTE has not
`
`shown how Erickson remedies the deficiency of independent claim 27 as set forth
`
`above, ZT

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket