Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AT&T MOBILITY, LLC
`AND
`CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`
`
`SOLOCRON MEDIA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Patent No. 8,594,651
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,594,651
`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-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................... 1
`I.
`II. NOTICES, STATEMENTS AND PAYMENT OF FEES ........................... 2
`A. Real Parties In Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .................................. 2
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................. 2
`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) ....................................... 3
`E. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ..................................... 3
`F. Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................... 4
`III. THE ’651 PATENT .......................................................................................... 4
`A. Background .................................................................................................... 4
`B. Prosecution History of the ’651 Patent ......................................................... 6
`IV. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) .. 6
`V. HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (B) (3) ................................................................ 8
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(4) AND (B)(5) ....................................... 11
`A. Claims 1, 10, 12, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 32 and 33 Are Anticipated by
`Hamalainen. ................................................................................................ 11
`B. Claims 1, 12, 16, 17, 23, 25, 31, 32 and 40 Are Anticipated by Muhonen 28
`C. Claims 1, 10, 12, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 31, 32, 33, and 40 are Obvious
`Over Hamalainen and Muhonen in Light of Each Other. ........................... 50
`D. Claims 10 and 21 Are Obvious Over Hamalainen or Muhonen in Light of
`the Nokia 9110 Communicator or Morita. .................................................. 51
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 58
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit 1001
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Excerpts of Documents Showing Mr. Shanahan’s Prosecution
`and Litigation Experience and Former Clients
`
`Complaint filed in Solocron v. AT&T Mobility. LLC, et al., (E.D.
`Tex.) (Case No. 2:13-cv-1059)
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,594,651
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`Declaration of Jari Valli and Nokia 9110 Communicator User
`Manual
`
`Certified Translation of Japanese Patent Application Publication
`No. H4-304935, published May 13, 1994, filed in MobileMedia
`Ideas, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Case No. 1:10-cv-00258)
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`Declaration of Erin Flaucher
`
`Exhibit 1007
`
`International Publication Number WO 99/41920
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`Declaration of Mr. Mark Lanning Regarding U.S. Patent No.
`8,594,651, dated 12/05/2014
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`International Publication Number WO 99/66746
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Petitioners AT&T Mobility, LLC and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon
`
`Wireless (“Petitioners”) hereby request inter partes review of claims 1, 10, 12, 16,
`
`17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 31, 32, 33, and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 8,594,651 (“the ’651
`
`Patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
`
`The ’651 patent is part of a family of nearly twenty patents owned by
`
`Solocron Media, LLC (“Solocron”), a small company based in Tyler, Texas near
`
`the Eastern District of Texas courthouse. Solocron acquired this portfolio from
`
`Michael Shanahan, a telecommunications and electronics patent prosecutor
`
`formerly of Fish & Neave and McDermott Will & Emery. See, e.g., Exhibit 1001.
`
`Mr. Shanahan’s clients over the past fifteen years include Nokia, Inc. (“Nokia”)
`
`and other well-known electronics companies. Exhibit 1001.
`
`Solocron alleges that the ’651 patent relates to converting video file formats
`
`at an intermediate server. Specifically, Solocron is alleging that it first developed
`
`technology used to convert video files sent between wireless communication
`
`devices. Video file format conversion would only occur if a format change was
`
`required in order for the video file to be accessible by the recipients wireless
`
`communication device. However, as will be discussed in detail below, file
`
`conversion, including video file conversion, was well-known before the filing of
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`the ’651 patent, as evidenced by Nokia’s WIPO Patent Application No. WO
`
`99/41920 (“Hamalainen”), which discloses the claimed concepts of the ’651
`
`patent. Hamalainen is one example of invalidating prior art that was not presented
`
`to the Patent Office during the prosecution of the ’651 patent or any of the
`
`applications to which it claims priority.
`
`For the reasons below, there is a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 10, 12,
`
`16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 31, 32, 33, and 40 of the ’651 patent are unpatentable in
`
`light of the prior art, including Hamalainen, warranting inter partes review.
`
`II. NOTICES, STATEMENTS AND PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`A. Real Parties In Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`
`
`The real parties in interest are AT&T Mobility, LLC and Cellco Partnership
`
`d/b/a Verizon Wireless.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`
`
`Solocron sued the following entities (in addition to AT&T Mobility, LLC
`
`and Verizon Wireless) for infringement of the ’651 Patent in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas on December 6, 2013 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01059) (hereinafter, “the
`
`Litigation”): Sprint Corporation, Sprint Communications Company L.P., Sprint
`
`Solutions Inc., and T-Mobile USA, Inc. See Exhibit 1002.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`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. Powers of
`
`attorney pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) accompany this Petition.
`
`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
`Lead Counsel
`Backup Counsel
`Theodore Stevenson, III, Reg. No. 39,040
`Scott W. Hejny, Reg. No. 45,882
`
`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 address above.
`
`AT&T Mobility, LLC consents
`
`to electronic
`
`service by email at:
`
`shejny@mckoolsmith.com and nmathews@mckoolsmith.com. Verizon Wireless
`
`consents to electronic service by email at: kanderso@wileyrein.com and
`
`fchapman@wileyrein.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 ’651 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review, and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`from requesting inter partes review based on the grounds identified herein.
`
`Petitioners also certify this petition for inter partes review is filed within one year
`
`of the date of service of the complaint discussed above.
`
`F.
`
`Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`
`
`AT&T Mobility, LLC is concurrently submitting fees of $23,000. To the
`
`extent any additional fees are deemed necessary to accord this Petition a filing
`
`date, authorization is hereby granted to charge the same to Deposit Account No.
`
`50-5723 with reference to Attorney Docket No. 01869-10IP651-2.
`
`III. THE ’651 PATENT
`A. Background
`
`The ’651 patent was filed on December 21, 2012, and purports to claim
`
`priority to applications dating back to December 1999. Exhibit 1003. Though
`
`Solocron has asserted this patent against AT&T’s and Verizon’s servers that
`
`process Multimedia Messaging Service (“MMS”) messages, the ’651 patent makes
`
`no reference to MMS or any other type of messaging service. Rather, the ’651
`
`patent specification is entirely directed to user-defined downloadable ringtones. A
`
`downloadable ringtone is an audio clip that a phone user can download and set to
`
`play when the phone receives an incoming call or text message. Of the family of
`
`patents filed by Mr. Shanahan before filing the ’651 patent, all but one related to
`
`downloadable ringtones and not file format conversion. Mr. Shanahan waited until
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`2006, when
`
`transcoding
`
`servers were widely used
`
`throughout
`
`the
`
`telecommunications industry, to file his first patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,742,759,
`
`reciting claims related to file format conversion. The only other patent filed
`
`related to file format conversion was the ‘651 patent, filed six years later.
`
`In support of his 2012 claims related to video file format conversion, Mr.
`
`Shanahan relied on an embodiment in the specification relating to converting and
`
`downloading user-defined ringtones. Figure 1 is representative and depicts a
`
`“source 50,” a “device programmer 30,” and a “device 20”:
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1003, Figure 1. “Device 20” selects a user-defined file from a “source 50,”
`
`such as the Internet. Id. at 3:30-41. The file is then transmitted to “device
`
`programmer 30” that converts the file to a format compatible with “device 20.” Id.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`“Device 20” then downloads the user-defined file and may retrieve it when a
`
`certain even occurs, e.g., when receiving an incoming call. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’651 Patent
`
`The ’651 patent claims priority to the following U.S. Patent Application
`
`Nos.: (1) 13/615,013, filed on Sep. 13, 2012, now Pat. No. 8,452,272, (2)
`
`13/471,161, filed on May 14, 2012, now Pat. No. 8,401,537, (3) 13/316,203, filed
`
`on Dec. 9, 2011, now Pat. No. 8,521,234, (4) 12/128,991, filed on May 29, 2008,
`
`now Pat. No. 8,170,538, (5) 11/633,142, filed on Dec. 2, 2006, now Pat. No.
`
`7,555,317, (6) 10/600,975, filed on Jun. 20, 2003, now Pat. No. 7,149,509, (7)
`
`09/518,846, filed on Mar. 3, 2000, now abandoned, and (8) 60/169,158, filed
`
`December 6, 1999 (“the December 1999 application”).
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`
`
`
`Petitioners requests inter partes review of claims 1, 10, 12, 16, 17, 21, 23,
`
`24, 25, 31, 32, 33, and 40 of the ’651 patent, in view of the references identified
`
`below.
`
`1. Hamalainen, WIPO Patent Application No. WO 99/41920, filed February 9,
`
`1999 and published August 19, 1999 (Exhibit 1007). This reference is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). The PTO never considered Hamalainen during
`
`prosecution.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`2. Muhonen, International Publication Number WO 99/66746 was filed
`
`on June 14, 1999 and published on December 23, 1999 (Exhibit 1009). This post-
`
`dates the December 6, 1999 filing of Mr. Shanahan’s provisional patent application
`
`to which all later applications claim priority. Nevertheless, as discussed below in
`
`Section VI.B, as Muhonen is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because claims 1,
`
`12, 16, 17, 23, 25, 31, 32 and 40 are not entitled to the filing date of the December
`
`1999 provisional application.
`
`3.
`
`Nokia 9110 Communicator User Manual (“9110 UM”) (Exhibit 1004),
`
`User’s Manual for Nokia 9110, published no later than February 1, 1999. See
`
`Exhibit 1004 pp. 2-3, ¶¶ 4-6. The 9110 UM was not considered by the Office
`
`during prosecution.
`
`The 9110 UM is properly considered prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`102(a) and/or 102(b). The 9110 UM bears a copyright date of 1998 (Exhibit 1004
`
`at p. 7), and was distributed to customers on a CD with the 9110 by no later than
`
`February 1, 1999. Exhibit 1004 pp. 2-3, ¶¶ 2-6; Exhibit 1006 pp.2-3 ¶¶ 4-13; see
`
`also Stored Value Solutions, Inc. v. Card Activation Techs. Inc., 499 F. App’x 5,
`
`14 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (user manual was printed publication given that it was dated
`
`prior to the critical date and was in fact distributed to customers who purchased the
`
`software prior to the critical date). The 9110 UM was also available on the internet
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`no later than February 1, 1999, such that any person interested and ordinarily
`
`skilled would have been able to easily locate it. Exhibit 1004 p. 3, ¶¶ 5-13. Thus,
`
`the 9110 UM is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`4. Morita, Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H4-304935, published
`
`May 13, 1994. This reference is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). The PTO never
`
`considered Morita during prosecution.
`
`
`
`Petitioners request that claims 1, 10, 12, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 31, 32, 33,
`
`and 40 be cancelled based upon the following grounds, as explained in detail
`
`below (including relevant claim constructions): Ground 1: claims 1, 10, 12, 16,
`
`17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 32, and 33 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by
`
`Hamalainen; Ground 2: claims 1, 12, 16, 17, 23, 25, 31, 32 and 40 are invalid
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Muhonen; Ground 3: claims 1, 10, 12, 16,
`
`17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 31, 32, 33, and 40 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Muhonen or Hamalainen in view of each other; Ground 4: claims 10 and 21 are
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Muhonen or Hamalainen in view of the Nokia
`
`9110 Communicator or Morita.
`
`V. HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b) (3)
`
`
`
`In this proceeding, claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation consistent with the specification and prosecution history. See Patent
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012. The
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the relevant claim terms is as follows:
`
`“Digital camera of the first wireless communications device” has no
`
`written support in the specification or the provisional application, yet appears in
`
`claims 10 and 21. Thus, petitioners propose that “digital camera of the first
`
`wireless communications device” be given its plain and ordinary meaning. If the
`
`board determines that a construction is necessary, Petitioners propose “a digital
`
`camera that is part of the first wireless communications device.” (Exhibit 1008, ¶
`
`27).
`
`“Link that identifies the converted file” has no written support in the
`
`specification or the provisional application, yet appears in claims 31 and 40. In
`
`construing this claim, petitioner relies upon Solocron’s implicit claim constructions
`
`within its infringement contentions and proposed claim constructions from the
`
`district court litigation. There, Solocron’s proposed construction for this term is
`
`“an element that identifies the converted file” and it contends that the claim covers
`
`a link sent to the second wireless communications device notifying the user that a
`
`converted file is available to download. It must be noted however, that in order to
`
`make such infringement claims, Solocron has stretched the meaning of this
`
`limitation. The term “link” only appears in the specification in the context of a
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`wired or wireless “communication link,” not a link that may be used to download a
`
`file whose format has been converted. The only indicia of a file sent to a second
`
`wireless device in the patent specification related an indicia of an unconverted file,
`
`not an indicia of a converted file. (Exhibit 1008 at ¶ 28). Nevertheless, petitioners
`
`will accept, for the purposes of this IPR proceeding only, the patent owners
`
`proposed construction as the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “link
`
`that identifies the converted file.” Thus, Petitioners propose that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of this term is “an element that identifies the converted
`
`file.”
`
`“The format compatible with the second wireless device comprises a
`
`different file size than the format of the selected video file” has no written
`
`support in the specification or the provisional applications, yet appears in claims 23
`
`and 32. Thus, petitioners propose that “the format compatible with the second
`
`wireless device comprises a different file size than the format of the selected video
`
`file” be given its plain and ordinary meaning. (Exhibit 1008, ¶ 29).
`
`“The format compatible with the second wireless device comprises a
`
`different resolution than the format of the selected video file” has no written
`
`support in the specification or the provisional applications, yet appears in claims 24
`
`and 33. Thus, petitioners propose that “the format compatible with the second
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`wireless device comprises a different resolution than the format of the selected
`
`video file” be given its plain and ordinary meaning. (Exhibit 1008, ¶ 30).
`
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4) AND (b)(5)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4) and (b)(5), Petitioners set forth an
`
`explanation below of why claims 1, 10, 12, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 31, 32, 33, and
`
`40 of the ’651 patent are unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified above,
`
`including the identification of where each element is found in the prior art patents
`
`or printed publications. The claim charts identify the supporting evidence relied
`
`upon to support the challenge by exhibit number and set forth the relevance of the
`
`evidence to the challenge raised, including an identification of those specific
`
`portions of the evidence that support the challenge. An Exhibit List (see 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.63(e)) identifying the exhibits is also included, supra, at p. iii.
`
`A. Claims 1, 10, 12, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 32 and 33 Are Anticipated
`by Hamalainen.
`
`In February 1999, before Mr. Shanahan filed the application that issues as
`
`the ’651 patent, Nokia filed a patent application covering a method for “data
`
`transmission between communication devices in a multimedia system.” Exhibit
`
`1007. This application was issued by WIPO as International Publication Number
`
`No. WO 99/41920 (the “Hamalainen” patent).
`
`Hamalainen discloses a “public land mobile network (PLMN) based on a
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`cellular network, such as the GSM system,” as shown in Figure 1 from the patent
`
`(reproduced below). The patent discloses the transfer of speech and data between
`
`mobile stations (MS) and the network via base transceiver stations (BTS), which
`
`are controlled by base station controllers (BSC). Mobile services switching centres
`
`(MSC) transmit connections between base stations and, for example, other MSCs
`
`or packet data networks (PDN), which in turn communicate with devices on their
`
`respective networks such as servers and mobile stations. The MSC receives
`
`parameter data regarding the multimedia properties of multimedia data such as
`
`video sent from a first communication device to the network, for transmission to a
`
`second multimedia device. Based on
`
`the requirements of
`
`the receiving
`
`communications device, such as another mobile station, the MSC converts the
`
`multimedia data so that it meets the parameters of the receiving device.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`(Exhibit 1007, Figure 1).
`
`As will be described in more detail below, Hamalainen discloses that the
`
`transmitted file communicated between mobile stations may be a video file, that
`
`the user-devices may be wireless communications devices such as computers or
`
`wireless telephones, that the file type may be converted to and from JPEG format,
`
`that conversion may result in a change of resolution, file size, or compression
`
`format, and that the intermediary server may send a link to the converted file
`
`instead of the file itself.
`
`Thus, Nokia first invented and disclosed all features recited in claims 1, 12,
`
`16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 31, 32, 33, and 40 of the ’651 patent before Mr. Shanahan filed
`
`his earliest application in the priority chain, and more than thirteen years before he
`
`submitted the application that issued as the ’651 patent. Mr. Mark Lanning, a
`
`telecommunications expert with a BS in computer science and over 35 years of
`
`experience in the telecommunications industry, has provided an extensive analysis
`
`of the disclosure of each ’641 claim element in Hamalainen in his expert
`
`declaration, filed concurrently herewith as Exhibit 1009 at ¶¶ 31-52, 60-104.
`
`Claim charts showing the anticipatory nature of Hamalainen are below.
`
`CLAIM ELEMENT WHERE ELEMENT IS FOUND IN HAMALAINEN (EXHIBIT
`1007)
`“The invention relates to a method for data transmission
`between communication devices in a communication
`
`1[preamble]. A
`method of format
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`network, in which method a data transmission connection
`is set up between a first communication device and a
`second communication device. In the method of the
`invention, parameter data on the multimedia properties of
`the first communication device is transmitted from the first
`communication device to the communication network, and
`the parameter data is transmitted in the communication
`network to the second communication device. According
`to an advantageous embodiment of the method, the
`multimedia information to be transmitted to the first
`communication device, such as graphic, audio, video, or
`presentation format information, is converted in the
`second communication device on
`the basis of
`the
`parameter data.” (Exhibit 1007, Abstract).
`
`“As shown in Fig. 1, the public land mobile network
`(PLMN) based on a cellular network, such as the GSM
`system, comprises,
`in a known manner,
`several
`communications devices, such as mobile stations (MS)
`MS1-MS4
`and
`a
`base
`station
`subsystem
`as
`BSS….Communication,
`such
`transmission
`and
`reception of speech and data, between a mobile station
`MS1 located in the area of the cell served by the base
`transceiver station BTS1, and the base transceiver station
`BTS1 takes place via radio communication RC1 by using
`radio channels reserved for the cell.” (Exhibit 1007, 5:23-
`34).
`
`
`
`
`converting a video
`file received from a
`first wireless
`communications
`device for
`communication to a
`second wireless
`communications
`device, the method
`comprising:
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`[1a] receiving from a
`first wireless
`communications
`device at least one
`video file selected by
`a user of the first
`wireless
`communications
`device for
`transmission to a
`second wireless
`communications
`device having video
`playing capability;
`
`[1b] determining a
`format of the selected
`
`
`
`
`
`(Exhibit 1007, Figure 1).
`“The invention relates to a method for data transmission
`between communication devices in a communication
`network, in which method a data transmission connection
`is set up between a first communication device and a
`second communication device. In the method of the
`invention, parameter data on the multimedia properties of
`the first communication device is transmitted from the first
`communication device to the communication network, and
`the parameter data is transmitted in the communication
`network to the second communication device. According
`to an advantageous embodiment of the method, the
`multimedia information to be transmitted to the first
`communication device, such as graphic, audio, video, or
`presentation format information, is converted in the
`second communication device on
`the basis of
`the
`parameter data.” (Exhibit 1007, Abstract).
`for
`invention,
`“According
`to
`the method of
`the
`optimisation of the data to be transmitted from the server,
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`video file;
`
`for example high resolution of a graphic file is reduced to
`a level that can be displayed in the display of a wireless
`multimedia
`communication
`device. Thus, when
`transmitting a graphic file, it is also possible to convert the
`original coding of the image, e.g. GIF, JPEG or TIFF, into
`another way of coding, whereby the data transmission
`connection is used as efficiently as possible, it can be
`reproduced by the display device of the destination
`communication device, or the coding can be interpreted by
`the communication device with its application software.”
`(Exhibit 1007, 13:1-10).
`
`“In another example, the transmission rate, as well as
`resolution, of a video image stored in the server can be
`adapted to better correspond e.g. to the reproduction
`capacity of the mobile station or to the capacity of the data
`transmission connection, e.g. a radio connection.” (Exhibit
`1007, 13:14-17).
`“According to a first advantageous embodiment of the
`method of the invention, the mobile station transmits on
`the radio channel a message (MM_CAPABILITIES)
`consisting of parameters MM1-MM12 describing the
`multimedia properties of the mobile station to the mobile
`services switching centre.” (Exhibit 1007, 12:8-12).
`
`“Also, the properties of the receiving device must be taken
`into account e.g. in a case that the device supports only a
`certain presentation protocol, such as a certain HTML
`version. It is particularly important to take into account the
`properties of the device when loadable program codes are
`used, such as Java.” (Exhibit 1007, 13:1-35).
`
`“Properties of the receiving communication device, such
`as a mobile phone, communicator or multimedia
`communication device, affecting
`the use of above-
`mentioned multimedia services include for example:
`- parameters MM1 (e.g. resolution) of the display of the
`communication device,
`
`[1c] determining from
`information
`associated with the
`second wireless
`communications
`device video file
`format requirements
`of the second wireless
`communications
`device.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`[1d] comparing, with
`one or more computer
`processors, the video
`file format
`requirements of the
`second wireless
`communications
`device with the
`format of the selected
`video file;
`
`the data
`
`-
`
`-
`
`the
`by
`supported
`coding methods
`image
`communication device, and their parameters MM2,
`- audio
`coding methods
`supported
`by
`the
`communication device, and their parameters MM3,
`- service-specific data transmission rate MM5,
`- service specific data transmission mode MM6 (e.g.
`SMS, HSCSD, GPRS),
`- maximum data transmission rate MM7 of the data
`transmission mode,
`- maximum size MM8 of the graphics files,
`- number MM9 of the colors of the graphics,
`- properties MM10 of
`the keypad of
`transmission device, and
`- properties MM11 of the control device (e.g. mouse,
`pointer ball, joystick) of the communication device,
`INTERNET presentation modes MM12 (e.g. Java,
`HTML versions) supported by the communication
`device.
`(Exhibit 1007, 11:1-23).
` “On the basis of the received data, the server of the
`communication device conducts optimisation of the data to
`be transmitted to correspond to the multimedia properties
`of
`the mobile station, after which optimised data
`transmission can be
`started
`(OPTIMAL_DATA).”
`(Exhibit 1007, 12:27-31).
`
`for
`invention,
`the
`the method of
`to
`“According
`optimisation of the data to be transmitted from the server,
`for example high resolution of a graphic file is reduced to
`a level that can be displayed in the display of a wireless
`multimedia
`communication
`device. Thus, when
`transmitting a graphic file, it is also possible to convert the
`original coding of the image, e.g. GIF, JPEG or TIFF, into
`another way of coding, whereby the data transmission
`connection is used as efficiently as possible, it can be
`reproduced by the display device of the destination
`communication device, or the coding can be interpreted by
`the communication device with its application software.”
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`[1e] in response to
`said comparison,
`converting with one
`or more computer
`processors, the format
`of the selected video
`file to a format that is
`compatible with the
`video file format
`requirements of the
`second wireless
`communications
`device; and
`
`(Exhibit 1007, 13:1-10).
`
`Also, the properties of the receiving device must be taken
`into account e.g. in a case that the device supports only a
`certain presentation protocol, such as a certain HTML
`version. It is particularly important to take into account the
`properties of the device when loadable program codes are
`used, such as Java.” (Exhibit 1007, 13:30-35).
`“According to an advantageous embodiment of the
`method, the multimedia information to be transmitted to
`the first communication device, such as graphic, audio,
`video, or presentation format information, is converted in
`the second communication device on the basis of the
`parameter data.” (Exhibit 1007, Abstract).
`
`“On the basis of the received data, the server of the
`communication device conducts optimisation of the data to
`be transmitted to correspond to the multimedia properties
`of
`the mobile station, after which optimised data
`transmission can be
`started
`(OPTIMAL_DATA).”
`(Exhibit 1007, 12:27-31).
`
`for
`invention,
`the
`the method of
`to
`“According
`optimisation of the data to be transmitted from the server,
`for example high resolution of a graphic file is reduced to
`a level that can be displayed in the display of a wireless
`multimedia
`communication
`device. Thus, when
`transmitting a graphic file, it is also possible to convert the
`original coding of the image, e.g. GIF, JPEG or TIFF, into
`another way of coding, whereby the data transmission
`connection is used as efficiently as possible, it can be
`reproduced by the display device of the destination
`communication device, or the coding can be interpreted by
`the communication device with its application software. It
`is often possible to reduce the resolution of an image
`without hampering the interpretation of the information in
`the image. By selection of the coding, it is also possible to
`affect the graphic file to be transmitted, whereby smaller
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-______
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`files can be transmitted faster. In another example, the
`transmission rate, as well as resolution, of a video image
`stored in the server can be adapted to better correspond
`e.g. to the reproduction capacity of the mobile station or to
`the capacity of the data transmission connection, e.g. a
`radio connection. This takes place for example by re-
`coding and pre-processing of the video image to be
`transmitted, which can be conducted also in connection
`with transmission of a real-time video image, such as a
`video negotiation. The original coding, such as MPEG,
`can be converted. Thus, the video image to be transmitted
`is re-coded to suit the way of transmission of the
`communication, for example the HSCSD service or the
`GSM GPRS network. In a further example, the server can
`take into account the properties of the input means of the
`receiving communication device, such as the properties of
`the keypad and the properties of the control device, such
`as a mouse, joystick or pointer ball, or their possible lack
`in the de