`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`
`SOLOCRON MEDIA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00364
`Patent No. 7,295,864
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CORRECTED PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,295,864
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. 
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................ 1 
`
`II.  NOTICES, STATEMENTS AND PAYMENT OF FEES .................................. 3 
`
`A.  Real Party In Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ..................................... 3 
`
`B.  Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................. 3 
`
`C.  Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .......................... 3 
`
`D.  Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ....................................... 4 
`
`E.  Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ..................................... 4 
`
`F.  Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 – Previously Submitted .............................. 4 
`
`III.  THE ‘864 PATENT ............................................................................................. 4 
`
`A.  Background .................................................................................................... 4 
`
`B.  The Asserted Priority Chain of the ‘864 Patent ............................................ 8 
`
`C.  Prosecution History of the ‘864 Patent ......................................................... 9 
`
`D.  Prosecution History of United States Patent No. 7,319,866 ....................... 10 
`
`IV. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) ........ 11 
`
`V.  HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIM IS TO BE CONSTRUED UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104 (B) (3) ...................................................................................... 13 
`
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE UNDER 37
`C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(4) AND (B)(5) ................................................................. 17 
`
`A.  The Challenged Claims Are Not Entitled to Claim Priority to Any Earlier
`Application. ................................................................................................. 17 
`
`1.  Legal Standards Relevant to Priority .................................................. 19 
`
`a.  To Evaluate Invalidity Under Anticipation Or Obviousness,
`The Priority Date Must Be Determined Based Upon The
`Written Description Requirement. ............................................ 19 
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`b.  Adequate Written Description Requires Express Or Inherent
`Disclosure And Identification Of The “Blaze Marks” Of Later-
`Claimed Characteristics. ........................................................... 21 
`
`2. 
`
`The Priority Applications Do Not Reasonably Convey That the
`Inventor Possessed “Polyphonic Audio Files.” ............................. 23 
`
`a.  The Priority Applications Lack Actual or Inherent Written
`Description for “Polyphonic Audio Files.”............................... 23 
`
`b.  The Inventor Did Not Provide The Requisite Blaze Marks For
`Polyphonic Audio Files. ............................................................ 25 
`
`c.  Solocron Is Estopped From Asserting Priority Because It
`Distinguished The Prior Art As Lacking the Same Disclosure
`That the Priority Applications Lack. ......................................... 28 
`
`d.  Solocron’s New Litigation Citations Similarly Do Not Show
`That The Inventor Had Possession Of The Concept Of
`Polyphonic Audio File In The Priority Applications. ............... 30 
`
`B.  Claims 11, 12, 16, 17 and 19 Are Anticipated by Holm ............................. 32 
`
`C.  Claims 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 Are Anticipated by Dewing. ................. 39 
`
`D.  Claims 11-14, 16, 17 and 19 Are Obvious Over the Shanahan PCT
`Application in View of Olrik. ..................................................................... 49 
`
`E.  Claims 13 and 14 Are Obvious over Holm and Gargiulo. .......................... 54 
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 58 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 24, 25
`
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`601 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 22
`
`Bradford Co v. Conteyor,
`603 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 29, 30
`
`Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffman-La Roche Inc.,
`541 F.3d 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 1
`
`Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`363 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 21
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.,
`323 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 20
`
`Hitzeman v. Rutter,
`243 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 24
`
`Hollmer v. Harari,
`681 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 19
`
`Hyatt v. Boone,
`146 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 22
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 20
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 15, 30
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................. 20, 21, 22
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc.,
`230 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .............................................................. 23, 26, 27
`
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................... 21-22
`
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................... 20, 21
`
`Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co.,
`358 F.3d 916 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,295,864 (the ‘864 patent)
`
`Exhibit 1002 Complaint filed in Solocron v. Cellco Partnership et al. (Case
`No. 2-13-cv-1059) (E.D. Tex.)
`Exhibit 1003 Copy of U.S. Provisional Patent App. 60/169,158, as filed Dec.
`6, 1999 (downloaded from PAIR)
`Exhibit 1004 Copy of Prosecution History for U.S. Patent App. 09/518,712,
`filed Mar. 3, 2000 (now U.S. Patent No. 6,496,692) (as produced
`by Solocron)
`Exhibit 1005 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1006 Copy of U.S. Patent App. 10/223,200, as filed Aug. 16, 2002
`(now U.S. Patent No. 7,257,395) (downloaded from PAIR)
`Exhibit 1007 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1008 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1009 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Prosecution History for the U.S. Patent No. 7,257,395 (U.S.
`Patent App. 10/223,200) (downloaded from PAIR)
`Exhibit 1011 Excerpts of Documents Showing Mr. Shanahan’s Prosecution
`and Litigation Experience
`Exhibit 1012 List of Patents and Patent Applications Issued to Nokia Relating
`to Ringtones
`Exhibit 1013 Nokia Application No. 19991865 (the “1999 Nokia Finnish
`application”) (certified copy (in English) obtained from PAIR in
`connection with U.S. Patent No. 6,907,113)
`International Publication No. WO 98/25397, entitled
`“Telecommunication Device and a Method for Providing
`Ringing Information”, published June 11, 1998 (“Philips” or
`“Rizet”)
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Exhibit 1016
`
`Exhibit 1017
`
`Exhibit 1015 U.S. Patent No. 6,018,654, entitled “Method and Apparatus for
`Downloading Tones to Mobile Terminals,” filed October 29,
`1996, and issued January 25, 2000, to Valentine et al.
`(“Ericsson” or “Valentine”)
`“Ring My Bell,” The New Yorker, March 7, 2005. (downloaded
`from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/07/ring-my-
`bell)
`“The Sweet Sound of Success,” Time Magazine Europe, 2004
`(downloaded from
`http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901040816
`-678568,00.html)
`“Pioneer of the Mobile Ringtone Business,” Mobile
`Entertainment Forum MEF Special Recognition Award, 2004
`Exhibit 1019 Declaration of Internet Archive and Copies of Various Websites
`
`“Yamaha Sound Generator LSI ‘YMU757,’” Yamaha News
`Release
`International Publication No. WO 01/16931, entitled “Method
`And Arrangement For Providing Customized Audio
`Characteristics To Cellular Terminals,” published March 8, 2001
`(“Holm”)
`Exhibit 1022 Copy of U.S. Patent App. 10/603,271, as filed June 24, 2003
`(now U.S. Patent No. 7,295,864) (downloaded from PAIR)
`Exhibit 1023 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US2004/0123281, filed Dec.
`20, 2002, and published June 24, 2004 (“Olrik”)
`Exhibit 1024 U.S. Patent 7,555,537, filed December 20, 2000, entitled
`“Downloadable Multimedia Content and Method for
`Accounting” (“Gargiulo”)
`Exhibit 1025 U.S. Patent No. 6,911,592, entitled “Portable Telephony
`Apparatus With Music Tone Generator,” filed July 26, 2000,
`issued June 28, 2005, to Futamase
`Exhibit 1026 European Patent Application EP1073034, entitled “Portable
`Telephony Apparatus With Music Tone Generator,” was
`published January 31, 2001 (“Futamase”)
`Exhibit 1027 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1028 Exhibit Not Used
`
`
`Exhibit 1018
`
`Exhibit 1020
`
`Exhibit 1021
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Exhibit 1030
`
`Exhibit 1035
`
`Exhibit 1036
`
`Exhibit 1039
`
`Exhibit 1029 U.S. Patent Application No. 2001/0045153
`
`International Publication No. WO 01/41403, entitled “Methods
`and Apparatuses for Programming User-Defined Information to
`Electronic Devices”, published June 7, 2001 (“Shanahan PCT”)
`Exhibit 1031 Excerpt from Harvard Dictionary of Music, Second Edition,
`Revised and Enlarged, Willi Apel, The Belknap Press of Harvard
`University Press, Cambridge MA, 1975.
`Exhibit 1032 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1033 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1034 U.S. Patent No. 7,461,067, filed Sept. 13, 2002, and issued Dec.
`2, 2008 (“Dewing”)
`Final Decision dated April 21, 2014 in IPR2013-00072
`
`Final Decision dated April 22, 2014 in IPR2014-00116
`
`Exhibit 1037 Certified Translation of Japanese Patent Application 11-214083,
`filed July 28, 1999, and to which Futamase (Exhibit 1026) claims
`priority.
`Exhibit 1038 Local Patent Rule 4-3 Statement filed in Solocron v. Cellco
`Partnership et al. (E.D. Tex.) (Case No. 2-13-cv-1059)
`http://www.slideshare.net/JesseTeWeehi/elements-of-music-start
`
`Exhibit 1040 Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary
`
`Exhibit 1041 Encyclopedia Britannica
`
`Exhibit 1042 YM3812 Chip Manual
`
`Exhibit 1043 New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians
`
`Exhibit 1044 Oxford Music Online
`
`Exhibit 1045 MIDI Specification
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1048
`
`Exhibit 1052
`
`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Exhibit 1046
`
`Standard MIDI File Specification
`
`Exhibit 1047 General MIDI Specification
`
`ISO/IEC standard 11172-3 (“MP3” specification)
`
`Exhibit 1049 WMA File Format Specification
`
`Exhibit 1050 US 6,351,225 to Moreno
`
`Exhibit 1051 U.S. Patent No. 6,496,692 (“the ‘692 patent”)
`
`‘866 Prosecution History, Reply to Office Action dated 5/4/2007
`
`Exhibit 1053 Yamaha YMU757 Press Release, October 12, 1999
`
`Exhibit 1054 Yamaha YMU757 Technical Manual, February 2000
`
`Exhibit 1055 Analysis of WAV files provided in 1999 with Nokia 9110
`
`Exhibit 1056 U.S. Patent No. 7,319,866 (“the ‘866 patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1057 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1058 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1059 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1060 Certified English translations of JukeBoksi websites
`(corresponding to Exhibit 1019 at 0088-0098).
`Exhibit 1061 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1062 Copy of U.S. Patent App. 09/518,846, as filed March 3, 2000
`
`Exhibit 1063 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1064 Exhibit Not Used
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Exhibit 1065 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1066 The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics
`Terms (6th ed. 1997)
`Exhibit 1067 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1068 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1069 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1070 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1071 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1072 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1073 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1074 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1075 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1076 Copy of Prosecution History for the U.S. Patent No. 7,295,864
`(downloaded from PAIR)
`Exhibit 1077 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1078 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1079 Declaration of John M. Strawn, Ph.D., and CV
`
`Exhibit 1080 Declaration of Richard T. Mihran, Ph.D., and CV
`
`Exhibit 1081 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1082 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1083 Exhibit Not Used
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Exhibit 1084 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1085 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1086 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1087 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1088 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1089 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1090 Copy of Prosecution History for U.S. Patent App. 09/518,846,
`filed Mar. 3, 2000 (now abandoned)
`Exhibit 1091 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1092 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1093 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1094 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1095 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1096 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1097 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1098 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1099 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1100 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1101 Exhibit Not Used
`
`Exhibit 1102 Exhibit Not Used
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Exhibit 1103 Exhibit Not Used
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility LLC
`
`(“Petitioners”) request inter partes review of claims 11-14, 16, 17, and 19 (“the
`
`challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,864 (“the ‘864 patent”) (Exhibit
`
`1001).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
`
`“The basic function of a patent specification is to disclose an invention.”
`
`Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffman-La Roche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008). As with the ‘866 patent, an element of each challenged claim of the ‘866
`
`patent—which the inventor ultimately pointed to as defining his invention over the
`
`prior art—finds no support in the specifications of the priority applications.
`
`Instead, it was inserted into the claim years after the asserted priority date and
`
`years after the industry described, patented, and adopted this same technology. In
`
`light of this break in the priority chain, the challenged claims cannot claim priority
`
`to any earlier filed application. Under their correct priority date, the challenged
`
`claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 & 103 as discussed herein.
`
`In particular, the challenged claims recite a term that is neither expressly nor
`
`inherently disclosed in the ‘864 patent’s priority chain: “polyphonic audio files.”
`
`Rather, this term appeared for the first time in a preliminary amendment filed in
`
`2003—nearly four years after the earliest asserted priority date and two years after
`
`wireless carriers such as Petitioners released “polyphonic ringtone” products.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Under Federal Circuit law, the complete lack of support for the term
`
`“polyphonic audio file” in the priority applications, as detailed in the attached
`
`declaration of musicology expert Dr. John Strawn (Exhibit 1079), precludes the
`
`patentee from relying on any earlier filing date. The Board can assess this priority
`
`issue in an inter partes review, and has done so before. E.g., Exhibit 1036.
`
`The ‘864 patent is part of a family of nearly twenty patents owned by
`
`Solocron Media, LLC (“Solocron”), a small company based in Tyler, Texas.
`
`Solocron acquired this family from Michael Shanahan, a telecommunications and
`
`electronics patent prosecutor formerly of Fish & Neave and McDermott Will &
`
`Emery. E.g., Exhibit 1011. Mr. Shanahan’s clients over the past fifteen years
`
`include Nokia, Inc. (“Nokia”) and other electronics companies. Id.
`
`Solocron alleges that the ‘864 patent relates to a database storing ringtones
`
`that a user may browse and download to his wireless telephone. Personalizing a
`
`telephone with ringtones was well-known long before the ‘864 patent. Indeed,
`
`Nokia entities own at least 101 U.S. patents relating to ringtones, including 17
`
`patents and applications with an earlier filing date than the ‘864 patent. Exhibit
`
`1012. Nokia has even more international patents and applications, including WO
`
`01/16931 (“Holm”) (Exhibit 1021), which discloses the claimed concepts using
`
`nearly identical terminology. Holm is one example of a compelling prior art
`
`reference that discloses the elements of the challenged claims in explicit detail and
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`that was not presented to the Patent Office during the prosecution of the ‘864
`
`patent or any of the applications to which it claims priority.
`
`For the reasons below, there is a reasonable likelihood that the challenged
`
`claims of the ‘864 patent are unpatentable in light of the prior art, warranting inter
`
`partes review.
`
`II. NOTICES, STATEMENTS AND PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`A. Real Party In Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`
`
`The real parties in interest are Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`
`
`Solocron sued the following entities (and Petitioners) for infringement of the
`
`‘864 patent in the Eastern District of Texas on December 6, 2013 (Case No. 2:13-
`
`cv-01059)
`
`(“the Litigation”): Sprint Corporation, Sprint Communications
`
`Company L.P., Sprint Solutions Inc., and T-Mobile USA, Inc. See Exhibit 1002.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`
`
`Petitioners designate lead and back-up counsel as noted below.
`
`For Petitioner Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless
`Lead Counsel
`Backup Counsel
`Kevin P. Anderson, Reg. No. 43,471
`Floyd B. Chapman, Reg. No. 40,555
`Scott A. Felder, Reg. No. 47,558
`WILEY REIN LLP, ATTN: Patent Administration, 1776 K Street NW,
`Washington, DC 20006, Phone: 202.719.7000 / Fax: 202.719.7049
`For Petitioner AT&T Mobility LLC
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Backup Counsel
`Lead Counsel
`Scott W. Hejny, Reg. No. 45,882
`Theodore Stevenson, III, Reg. No. 39,040
`Nicholas Mathews, Reg. No. 66,067
`
`MCKOOL SMITH PC, 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500, Dallas, TX 75201
`Phone 214.978.4000 / Fax 214.978.4044
`
`
`D.
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead counsel at the addresses above.
`
`Petitioners consent to electronic service by email at: kanderson@wileyrein.com,
`
`fchapman@wileyrein.com, sfelder@wileyrein.com, shejny@mckoolsmith.com,
`
`tstevenson@mckoolsmith.com, and nmathews@mckoolsmith.com.
`
`E. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`
`
`Petitioners certify pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) that the ‘864 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review, and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting inter partes review based on the grounds herein. The original
`
`Petition was filed within one year of the service of the Complaint above.
`
`F.
`
`Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 – Previously Submitted
`
`III. THE ‘864 PATENT
`A. Background
`
`The ‘864 patent was filed on June 24, 2003, and purports to claim priority to
`
`applications dating back to December 1999. Exhibit 1001. It generally relates to
`
`databases storing ringtones. Id. at 1:60-62. The disclosures of the ‘864 patent and
`
`its priority applications, however, do not support the features claimed nearly four
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`years after the earliest asserted priority date. Figure 4A of the ‘864 patent
`
`illustrates that the original disclosures were nebulous and bear little resemblance to
`
`the ringtone matter the patentee sought to capture years later:
`
`In contrast, the challenged claims
`
`purport to cover a database storing
`
`polyphonic audio files that a user may
`
`browse and download.
`
`Id. at 13:40 – 14:23. Claim 11 reads:
`
`
`
` A method for providing a polyphonic audio file to a wireless telephone
`for use as an indicia of an incoming communication, the method
`comprising:
` providing a database of polyphonic audio files suitable for downloading
`to the wireless telephone;
` providing a list of polyphonic audio files in the database to a user of the
`wireless telephone when the user requests the list of polyphonic audio files;
` allowing the user of the wireless telephone to browse the list of
`polyphonic audio files;
` allowing the user of the wireless telephone to select a desired polyphonic
`audio file from the list of polyphonic audio files;
` allowing the user of the wireless telephone to optionally download a
`selected polyphonic audio file into the wireless telephone for future use as
`an indicia of an incoming communication; and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
` confirming the selected polyphonic audio file has been properly
`received.
`
`Id. at 13:40-58. Dependent claims 12-14, 16, 17, and 19 recite additional steps:
`
`allowing the user to search the database by title (claim 12, id. at 13:59-62);
`
`permitting the user to review the polyphonic audio file prior to download (claim
`
`13, id. at 13:63-67); providing the user with the option of downloading after review
`
`(claim 14, id. at 14:1-5); providing a plurality of lists of polyphonic audio files
`
`(claim 16, id. at 14:11-13); storing polyphonic audio files in MP3, MPEG, or
`
`WAV format (claim 17, id. at 14:14-17); and providing copyright protection for
`
`the database of polyphonic audio files (claim 19, id. at 14:20-24).
`
`The challenged claims recite features that are barely described and, in some
`
`cases, not even mentioned in the ‘864 specification. Most notably, neither
`
`“polyphonic audio files” nor anything related to the concept of “polyphony” can be
`
`found in the ‘864 specification. See generally Exhibit 1001.
`
`The inventor admits that he did not invent ringtones, conceding during
`
`prosecution of a related application that the concept of ringtones was known prior
`
`to his earliest filing date. Exhibit 1004 at 0095. Mr. Shanahan’s concession is
`
`required by the expansive body of pre-1999 ringtone related prior art. Well before
`
`Mr. Shanahan’s earliest priority date, entities such as Nokia, Ericsson, Inc., and
`
`Philips Electronics N.V. (“Philips”) pioneered and patented inventions relating to
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`customizing mobile phones with ringtones. Exhibits 1012, 1014-15.
`
`Despite Mr. Shanahan’s assertion that he invented the personalization of
`
`ringtones, that technology is also old. Over three years before Mr. Shanahan’s
`
`earliest non-provisional application, a Finnish inventor, Vesa-Matti Paananen,
`
`designed a product called Harmonium, which allowed users to personalize phones
`
`with ringtones delivered over the air. Exhibit 1016. Mr. Paananen has received
`
`recognition from the industry including a special award as “Pioneer of the Mobile
`
`Ringtone Business.” Exhibits 1016-1018.
`
`Beyond Mr. Paananen, various companies described and patented this
`
`personalization concept long before Mr. Shanahan. Exhibits 1014, 1015. For
`
`example, more than a year before Mr. Shanahan’s earliest priority date, Philips
`
`described a “telecommunication device and a remote database containing a variety
`
`of alternative forms of user selectable and downloadable ringing information.”
`
`Exhibit 1014, Abstract.
`
` Similarly, various websites with selectable and
`
`downloadable ringtones were available around the globe. Exhibits 1019, 1060.
`
`
`
`Even if Mr. Shanahan could properly claim priority to December 1999
`
`(which he cannot), he still would not be the first person to invent polyphonic
`
`ringtones and/or enhanced speakers for playing polyphonic ringtones. Such
`
`ringtones were simply an evolution in the cell phone industry. The concept of
`
`“polyphonic ringtones” appeared at least as early as September 1999 in European
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`and Japanese cell phone markets. See, e.g., Exhibit 1020 (describing the Yamaha
`
`LSI YMU757 chip, which permitted the playback of “high quality polyphony” on
`
`mobile phones, including “user-selected sound and melodies”). Moreover, in its
`
`July 1999 Japanese patent application, Yamaha described a “tone generator
`
`capable of sounding two or more tones at a time . . . in a portable terminal
`
`apparatus . . . [that] reproduces music which is various in kind and rich in
`
`musicality as ringing melodies.” Exhibit 1037 ¶ 0017. Yamaha even recognized
`
`that “the present invention uses audio information . . . [such as] WAVE, AIFF,
`
`SOUND VQ, or MP3 . . . .” Id. ¶ 0108. “The present invention allows common
`
`formatting to capture the audio information having these formats . . . .” Id.
`
`B.
`
`The Asserted Priority Chain of the ‘864 Patent
`
`The ‘864 patent claims priority to U.S. Patent Application Nos. 09/518,846,
`
`filed on March 3, 2000 (“the March 2000 application”) and 60/169,158, filed
`
`December 6, 1999 (“the December 1999 application”). Neither of these
`
`applications mentions, much less discloses within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`the “polyphonic audio files” now claimed.
`
`The entirety of the December 1999 application consists of a scant four
`
`double-spaced pages of written description, one doubled-spaced page of claims,
`
`and four block diagrams. Exhibit 1003. It does not use the term “polyphonic,”
`
`does not discuss polyphony conceptually, does not discuss the fidelity of ringtones,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`does not reference an “enhanced speaker,” and does not describe how to reproduce
`
`any polyphonic ringtone. See generally id.
`
`The March 2000 application also lacks any reference to “polyphonic,”
`
`“polyphony,” or anything related to those concepts, and there is no discussion of
`
`the quality of ringtones or the importance of fidelity to the invention. Exhibit
`
`1062. None of the claims in the March 2000 application as filed made any
`
`reference to “polyphonic,” (id.) and Mr. Shanahan never subsequently amended
`
`these claims to recite anything relating to “polyphonic” before abandoning the
`
`March 2000 application. Exhibit 1090.
`
`Because of the complete lack of underlying support for the “polyphonic
`
`audio file” term in every application in the priority chain, the challenged claims are
`
`not entitled to claim priority to any of these earlier applications.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘864 Patent
`
`On June 24, 2003, Mr. Shanahan filed U.S. Application No. 10/603,271
`
`(“the June 2003 application”), which matured into the ‘864 patent. As filed, the
`
`June 2003 application, like the March 2000 application with which it shares a
`
`substantially
`
`identical disclosure,
`
`lacked any
`
`reference
`
`to “polyphonic,”
`
`“polyphony,” or anything related to those concepts. The June 2003 application is
`
`likewise devoid of any discussion of the quality of ringtones or the importance of
`
`fidelity to the invention. Exhibit 1022. Nor did any of the claims as filed in the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`June 2003 application make any reference to “polyphonic.” Id.
`
`Only two months later, in a preliminary amendment mailed on August 27,
`
`2003, the term “polyphonic audio files” made its first appearance in the June 2003
`
`application, and its first appearance in any application related to the June 2003
`
`application. See Exhibit 1076 at 0183-91. The patentee offered no explicit support
`
`for this language, choosing instead to point generally to “the specification and
`
`drawings.” Id. at 0192.
`
`Not only did the Office accept Mr. Shanahan’s conclusory assertion without
`
`making any written priority determination, the claims that ultimately issued appear
`
`to have never been substantively reviewed or rejected over any prior art. Indeed,
`
`the challenged claims received only a single rejection for obviousness-type double
`
`patenting. Id. at 0086-87. On August 8, 2007, the Examiner accepted the
`
`patentee’s terminal disclaimer to overcome the double patenting rejection and
`
`allowed the claims without further explanation or discussion of why the claims
`
`were patentable. Id. at 0044-49.
`
`D.
`
`Prosecution History of United States Patent No. 7,319,866
`
`United States Patent No. 7,319,866 (“the ‘866 patent”) (Exhibit 1056) is a
`
`sibling to the ‘864 patent. Like the ‘864 patent, the specification of the ‘866 patent
`
`makes no mention of “polyphonic audio files,” “polyphony,” or related concepts.
`
`Id. Mr. Shanahan expressly distinguished the claims of the ‘866 patent over the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`asserted prior art (United States Patent Nos. 6,366,791 (“Lin”) and 7,088,990
`
`(“Isomursu”)) on the basis that these references lacked sufficient disclosure of
`
`polyphonic ringtones:
`
`Additional novel features of claims 1, 10 and 31 include the use of
`polyphonic audio files as ringtones. Both Isomursu and Lin fail disclose
`this feature at all. In fact, nowhere in either reference, or any reference of
`record, is the quality or fidelity of a ringtone mentioned or even recognized
`as a desirable or relevant feature. The use of high quality audio data such as
`polyphonic audio files for ringtones is an important feature of certain
`aspects of applicant's claimed invention. For example, the use of high
`fidelity ringtones such as polyphonic ringtones (sometimes referred to now
`as “real tones”, “true tones”, “master tones”, etc.) that may be actual MP3
`(or other high quality digital representations of) songs or other audio
`greatly improves the user’s experience by allowing the user to hear realistic
`recreations of selected audio . . . .
`
`Exhibit 1052 at 0021-22 (emphasis added); see also id. at 0019. Ironically, Mr.
`
`Shanahan’s own specification suffers the very same infirmities he asserted as to
`
`Lin and Isomursu.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`
`
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 11-14, 16, 17, and 19 in
`
`view of the references below, which are all prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a),
`
`(b), or (e) when the challenged claims are assigned their correct priority date:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00364
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1. Holm (Exhibit 1021), Int’l Pub No. WO 01/16931, published March 8,
`
`2001. The Office never considered Holm during prosecution.
`
`2.
`
`Dewing (Exhibit 1034), U.S. Patent No. 7,461,067, filed on September 13,
`
`2002 and issued on December 2, 2008. The Office never considered Dewing
`
`during prosecution.
`
`3.
`
`Shanahan PCT Application (Exhib