Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`
`Entered: November 24, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, DAVID C. McKONE, and
`PETER P. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 1
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`
`Entered: November 24, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, DAVID C. McKONE, and
`PETER P. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 1
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 4, 5, 33, and 34 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,214,873 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’873 patent”). Paper 1
`
`(“Pet.”). Black Hills Media, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`
`Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted
`
`“unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response and
`
`their accompanying exhibits, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 4, 5,
`
`33, and 34 of the ’873 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes
`
`review of these claims.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`On May 12, 2012, Patent Owner filed a Complaint against Petitioner
`
`in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement
`
`of three patents. On September 12, 2012, Patent Owner filed a First
`
`Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Petitioner, alleging for the first time,
`
`infringement of the ’873 patent. See Black Hills Media, LLC v. Yamaha
`
`Corp. of America, No. 1:12-cv-00635-RGA (D. Del.). The FAC was served
`
`on September 19, 2012. Pet. 7.
`
`2
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`On August 5, 2013, the Delaware Court transferred the case to the
`
`Central District of California. Id. In November 2013, the Central District of
`
`California ordered Patent Owner to file evidence of the chain of title for the
`
`asserted patents. Ex. 1004, 3. In December 2013, Defendants moved to
`
`dismiss the FAC for lack of standing, on the basis that Patent Owner did not
`
`own the allegedly infringed patents when it filed the original complaint in
`
`Delaware in May 2012. Id. The Central District of California subsequently
`
`found that “Plaintiff did not in fact own all rights and interests in the First
`
`Asserted Patents on May 22, 2012, when it filed the cases (citations
`
`omitted). In fact, Plaintiff did not take ownership of the patents until July
`
`23, 2012, more than two months after filing the Complaints (citation
`
`omitted). Plaintiff does not dispute these facts.” Id. at 2.
`
`The court dismissed the FAC without prejudice and further ordered
`
`Patent Owner to file and serve “new complaints in the Central District of
`
`California” by January 21, 2014. Ex. 1004, 7. On January 21, 2014, Patent
`
`Owner filed and served a new complaint alleging infringement of the ’873
`
`patent by Petitioner, No. 8:14-cv-00101. Pet. 8.
`
`The Patent Owner also initiated an investigation, pursuant to 19
`
`U.S.C. § 1337, in the U.S. International Trade Commission against LG,
`
`Sharp, Toshiba, Panasonic, and Samsung alleging, inter alia, infringement
`
`of the ’873 patent. See Certain Digital Media Devices, Including
`
`Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets and
`
`Mobile Phones, Components Thereof and Associated Software, Inv. No.
`
`3
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`337-TA-882 (USITC).1 Pet. 14.
`
`We previously instituted an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 6–12,
`
`13, 15–31, 42, 44–46 of the ’873 patent, in IPR 2013-00598, Yamaha
`
`Corporation of America v. Black Hills Media LLC (PTAB March 20, 2014)
`
`(Paper 19). In that proceeding, we denied institution as to claims 4, 5, 33,
`
`and 34. Id.2
`
`B. The ’873 Patent
`
`The subject matter of the challenged claims of the ’873 patent relates
`
`generally to a system and method for media sharing between electronic
`
`devices, by using a first device to provide remote control of playing of
`
`media items (e.g., songs or videos) on a second device such as a stereo or
`
`television. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 9:8–14. The first device receives a playlist
`
`and selects the second device, and a user selects the media items to be
`
`
`1 An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) at the ITC has issued a Final
`Initial Determination, in which the ALJ determined that the ’873 patent is
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. See Certain Digital Media Devices,
`Including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets
`and Mobile Phones, Components Thereof and Associated Software, Inv. No.
`337-TA-882 (July 14, 2014) (Final Initial Determination). The ITC
`subsequently determined not to review this part of the ALJ’s final initial
`determination. See 79 Fed. Reg. 55,827–28 (Sept. 17, 2014).
`2 Patent Owner argues that the Petition should be rejected under
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Prelim. Resp. 6–9. We have reviewed the Patent
`Owner’s arguments and cited authorities, and exercise our discretion to
`decline to reject the Petition under § 325(d). Petitioner’s prior art and
`arguments differ from those in IPR2013-00598.
`4
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`played on the second device, without user input via the second device.
`
`Pet. 2; Prelim. Resp. 6; Ex. 1001, Abstract; 2:28–40, 52–68.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’873 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts an embodiment of the invention wherein a playlist is
`
`communicated from playlist server 11 via Internet 12 to first device 13 or
`
`second device 14. Ex. 1001, 8:51–56. First device 13 comprises a remote
`
`control for second device 14, which may comprise a music rendering device
`
`such as a stereo, television, or home computer. Id. at 9:27–32, 55–63.
`
`C. Representative Claims
`
`Dependent claims 4, 5, 33, and 34 are the subject of the petition.
`
`Claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 1, and claims 33 and 34 depend from
`
`claim 30. Independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows.
`
`5
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`1. A method for facilitating the presentation of media, the
`method comprising:
`
`displaying, on a first device, at least one device identifier
`identifying a second device;
`
`receiving user first input selecting the at least one device
`identifier;
`
`receiving, on the first device, a playlist, the received playlist
`comprising a plurality of media item identifiers;
`
`receiving user second input selecting at least one media item
`identifier from the received playlist; and
`
`directing, from the first device, the second device to receive a
`media item identified by the at least one media item identifier
`from a content server, without user input via the second device.
`
`
`Claims 4, 5, 33, and 34 are reproduced below.
`
`4. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the first device
`comprises an MP3 player.
`
`5. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the first device
`comprises a mobile phone.
`
`33. The device as recited in claim 30, wherein the device comprises an
`MP3 player.
`
`34. The device as recited in claim 30, wherein the device comprises a
`mobile phone.
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon six prior art references.
`
`Reference
`
`Title
`
`Bi
`
`US 2002/0087996 A1
`
`Erekson
`
`US 6,622,018 B1
`
`Ausems
`
`US 2001/0044321 A1
`
`Yumoto
`
`US 2003/0080874 A1
`
`Safadi
`
`US 2002/0173339 A1
`
`Berman
`
`US 6,502,194 B1
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner contends the challenged claims are unpatentable based on
`
`four grounds.
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Bi, Erekson, and Ausems
`
`§ 103
`
`5 and 34
`
`Bi and Yumoto
`
`§ 103
`
`5 and 34
`
`Bi, Erekson, and Safadi
`
`§ 103
`
`4 and 33
`
`Berman and Yumoto
`
`§ 103
`
`5 and 34
`
`7
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Statutory Bar Under 35 U.S.C. § 315
`
`A threshold issue is Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner is
`
`barred from pursuing inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), which
`
`provides:
`
`An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition
`requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the
`date on which the petitioner, real party in interest or privy of
`the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement
`of the patent.
`
`In this proceeding, Petitioner filed its Petition on May 16, 2014
`
`(Paper 1), which was less than four months after it was served with Patent
`
`Owner’s complaint filed on January 21, 2014, in the Central District of
`
`California alleging infringement of the ’873 patent. Pet. 8. As described at
`
`pages 2–4 above, the January 21, 2014, complaint was filed one week after
`
`the court order dismissing the FAC.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the date on which Petitioner was served with
`
`a complaint alleging infringement of the ’873 patent was the FAC, filed on
`
`September 19, 2012. Prelim. Resp. 3. However, the FAC was
`
`jurisdictionally defective because Patent Owner lacked standing to sue at the
`
`time of the original complaint in May 2012. Ex. 1004, at 2. In a patent
`
`infringement action, for plaintiff properly to allege standing, it “must
`
`demonstrate that it held enforceable title to the patent at the inception of the
`
`lawsuit.” Paradise Creations, Inc. v. UV Sales, Inc., 315 F.3d 1304, 1309–
`
`8
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`10 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “[I]f the original plaintiff lacked Article III standing,
`
`the suit must be dismissed, and the jurisdictional defect cannot be cured”
`
`after the inception of the lawsuit. Schreiber Foods, Inc. v. Beatrice Cheese,
`
`Inc., 402 F.3d 1198, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Thus, neither Patent Owner’s
`
`original 2012 complaint nor its FAC were viable federal pleadings. Patent
`
`Owner finally filed a federal complaint properly alleging its standing to sue,
`
`on January 21, 2014. The instant petition was filed in May 2014.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner’s argument under § 315(b) fails.
`
`Patent Owner argues (Prelim. Resp. 4–6) that we should follow the
`
`Board’s recent denial of a petition under § 315(b) in Apple Inc. v Rensselaer
`
`Polytechnic Institute, Case IPR2014-00319 (PTAB June 12, 2014) (Paper
`
`12), Reh’g denied (Paper 14 ). In Apple, an earlier filed complaint was
`
`dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a consolidation order in which the
`
`earlier complaint was consolidated into another existing complaint. The
`
`Board found that the earlier lawsuit, “although dismissed, was continued
`
`immediately” into the consolidated action. Id. Paper 12, 6. The Apple case
`
`is distinguishable because the earlier, first-filed lawsuit against Apple was
`
`not jurisdictionally defective for lack of standing. On the record before us,
`
`we are not persuaded that this Petition should be denied under § 315(b).
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`9
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012). Claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Petitioner states that, as in our Decision in IPR2013-00598 (Paper 19)
`
`“the claims should be given their ordinary and customary meaning,” Pet. 14–
`
`15. Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and accompanying exhibits,
`
`including the declaration of Gareth Loy, assert that a “playlist” is “a list
`
`referencing media items arranged to be played in a sequence.” Prelim. Resp.
`
`16–19. The Specification, however, states that “selected songs may be
`
`played in the order selected, in random order, or in any other order. The
`
`order can preferably be changed at any time.” Ex. 1001, 3:23–24, 11:42–44.
`
`The construction proposed by Patent Owner is too narrow and would
`
`exclude the embodiment described in the specification. For purposes of this
`
`Decision, we determine that “playlist,” and all other terms in the challenged
`
`claims do not require express construction at this time.
`
`C. Claims 5 and 34 – Obviousness over Bi, Erekson, and Ausems
`
`Petitioner contends claims 5 and 34 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Bi, Erekson, and Ausems. Pet. 17–30. Claim 5
`
`depends from claim 1, with claim 5 further reciting that the first device
`
`comprises an MP3 player. Claim 34 depends from claim 30, further reciting
`
`that the claimed device comprises an MP3 player.
`
`10
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`Bi (Exhibit 1009)
`
`Bi is titled, “Interactive Remote Control of Audio or Video Playback
`
`and Selections.” Petitioner contends Bi discloses a system for an interactive
`
`remote control, which may be wireless, of an audio or playback application
`
`running on a personal computer or other computing platform. Pet. 18.
`
`Ex. 1009, Abstract. Figure 2 of Bi is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`Figure 2 depicts data server 102 that provides digital audio or video data via
`
`the Internet or other network 101 to computing platform 100. Ex. 1009 ¶ 20.
`
`Digital audio or video data also can be read from local storage 112. Id.
`
`Navigator 260 is a wireless remote control that communicates with
`
`computing platform 100 to control selection of audio or video data. Id. The
`
`navigator provides various functions “such as playback of current digital or
`
`audio video content; selection of new audio or video content; and providing
`
`lists of content for playback.” Id. ¶ 7. The digital content in Bi can be
`
`controlled from a location away from the computing platform running the
`
`digital content playback application. Id. Navigator 260 acts as a remote
`
`control and allows the user to receive feedback from and provide input to
`
`audio or video player application 151 running on computing platform 100.
`
`Id. ¶ 31. The communication with the computing platform may be wireless,
`
`e.g., by a Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11 interface. Id. ¶ 28.
`
`Figure 5 of Bi is reproduced below.
`
`12
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 5 depicts navigator 260 in communication with computing platform
`
`100. Navigator 260 can be configured to display user outputs such as
`
`graphics and text for display on LCD screen 266. Id. ¶ 18. Navigator
`
`control manager 154 of Figure 1 receives user inputs from navigator 260 and
`
`interprets and translates them into commands and actions for audio or video
`
`player application 151 to provide interactive remote control specifically for
`
`digital music playback and selection. Id. ¶ 31.
`
`Figure 7 of Bi is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`
`Figure 7 depicts the software flow of navigator control manager 154.
`
`Ex. 1009 ¶ 15. The remote control functionality includes browsing music by
`
`reference to playlists (step 188). The specification describes the software
`
`flow, in which steps 188–193 involve browsing and selection of music
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`utilizing navigator 260. Id. ¶ 32. These steps include browsing of music
`
`local to computing platform 100 and obtaining information from data server
`
`102 if the music is not on the local database. Id. “Typically, a browse of
`
`music is based on such criteria as music track, album, artist, music genre,
`
`and playlists.” Id.
`
`Petitioner contends Bi discloses the elements of claims 1 and 30 of the
`
`’873 patent, with the exception of the display of multiple devices for
`
`selection and control, which Petitioner contends is disclosed by Erekson.
`
`Pet. 21.
`
`
`
`
`
`Erekson (Ex. 1010)
`
`Erekson is titled, “Portable Device Control Console with Wireless
`
`Connection.” Erekson discloses “a system and method for controlling
`
`remote devices over a wireless connection (e.g., using a radio signal).”
`
`Ex. 1010, 2:18–19. In one embodiment, “a portable computer system (e.g., a
`
`palmtop or hand-held computer) having a transceiver is used to control
`
`compliant [remote] devices. In a preferred embodiment, the transceiver and
`
`the remote devices are Bluetooth-enabled devices.” Id. at 2:19–24. Each of
`
`the remote devices is shown on a display device. Id. at 2:27–30. Figure 7 of
`
`Erekson is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 7 depicts one embodiment of Erekson’s portable computing device
`
`100, with display 105, input 106 and stylus 90. Three remote devices 610,
`
`620, and 630 are indicated on display 105. Id. at Fig. 7. A user can select
`
`one of the remote devices by touching stylus 90 to display 105, or “may
`
`simply touch the screen” directly. Ex. 1010, Fig. 7, 9:3–24. Figure 11 of
`
`Erekson is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 11 is a flowchart of the steps in a process for controlling one or more
`
`remote devices. Id. at Fig. 11, 10:32–11:49. Once a device is selected, the
`
`“characteristics and capabilities” of the selected remote device are “linked to
`
`indications (e.g., icons) on display device.” Id. at 10:47–64. The selected
`
`remote device can be controlled “in some prescribed manner (e.g., turning
`
`the device off or on, raising or lowering a level, etc.) based on the type of
`
`device and its capabilities.” Id. at 8:56–61.
`
`17
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`Ausems (Exhibit 1011)
`
`Ausems is titled, “Personal digital assistant with wireless telephone,”
`
`and discloses an integrated wireless telephone, personal digital assistant.
`
`Ex. 1011, Abstract, ¶¶ 2, 8–9, 30. The combined PDA/telephone may also
`
`function as a remote control for multiple devices. Id. ¶¶ 9, 30, 65–66.
`
`Figure 2 of Ausems is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts a block diagram of the PDA wireless telephone of
`
`Ausems, including wireless phone engine 210, PDA engine 290, and short
`
`18
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`range transceiver 265, which may be a Bluetooth transceiver. Ex. 1011
`
`¶¶ 45, 49.
`
`Analysis
`
`
`
`In IPR 2013-00598 (Paper 19), we determined that for purposes of
`
`instituting a trial, Petitioner made an adequate showing that Bi and Erekson
`
`taught or suggested the limitations of claims 1 and 30. Yamaha Corporation
`
`of America v. Black Hills Media LLC (PTAB March 20, 2014), Paper 19, at
`
`10–20. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s arguments in the Preliminary
`
`Response (e.g., at 20–25, 28–32, and 41–47) and accompanying exhibits,
`
`and determine that for purposes of this Decision, Bi and Erekson teach the
`
`limitations of claims 1 and 30, from which claims 5 and 34 respectively
`
`depend. We adopt the reasoning set forth in the Decision to Institute in IPR
`
`2013-00598, as cited above, regarding the sufficiency of Petitioner’s
`
`showing as to independent claims 1 and 30.
`
`Petitioner provides explanations as to how the subject matter of
`
`dependent claims 5 and 34 is disclosed by Bi, Erekson, and Ausems.
`
`Pet. 17–30. In particular, Petitioner contends that Ausems teaches a mobile
`
`phone as a first device. Id. at 28-29. We are persuaded, on the present
`
`record, that Ausems teaches or suggests the recited mobile phone as the first
`
`device in claim 5 and the claimed device in claim 34, which is described in
`
`Ausems at paragraphs 45 and 46 and depicted in Fig. 2. See also Ex. 1011,
`
`Fig. 2 and ¶¶ 2, 9, 30, 38, 42, 49, 65–66.
`
`19
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`Patent Owner states there is no reason to combine Bi, Erekson and
`
`
`
`Ausems. Prelim. Resp. 48–49. Petitioner notes that, “just as with Erekson
`
`and Bi, Ausems discloses a PDA or hand-held computer operable as a
`
`remote control,” Pet. 28, and then states:
`
`In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of
`ordinary skill in the art to implement the navigator in Bi with a
`remote controller using a PDA that provides at least one device
`identifier in order to provide for selection of a device to control
`as disclosed in Erekson, and further which is a telephone to
`provide the desirable combined functionality and convenience
`of a PDA/phone/remote controller as disclosed in Ausems.
`(citing Ex. 1002 (Bove Decl.) ¶¶ 20–22.) Just as in the case of
`the combination of Bi and Erekson, the further combination
`with Ausems is simply applying a known technique to improve
`a known remote controller device by providing the desirable
`feature of a PDA, telephone, and remote control in a single
`device, and the result would have been predictable. (citing
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 22.) See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
`398, 417–22 (2007).
`
`
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence as
`
`to claims 5 and 34.
`
`
`
`D. Claims 4 and 33: Obviousness Over Bi, Erekson, and Safadi
`
`Petitioner contends dependent claims 4 and 33 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bi, Erekson, and Safadi. Pet. 37–38.
`
`Claim 4 depends from independent claim 1, with claim 4 further reciting that
`
`the first device comprises an MP3 player, and claim 33 depends from
`
`20
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`independent claim 30, with claim 33 further reciting that the claimed device
`
`comprises an MP3 player.
`
`Safadi (Exhibit 1013)
`
`Safadi is titled, “Self-configurable multipurpose modular portable
`
`device and methods for configuring same,” and discloses a portable device
`
`that can be a PDA, a cellular telephone, a universal remote control, or an
`
`MP3 player, and “combinations of such devices.” Pet. 37. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 1, 6,
`
`18.
`
`
`
`Analysis
`
`Petitioner provides explanations as to how the subject matter of
`
`dependent claims 4 and 33 is disclosed by Bi, Erekson, and Safadi. Pet. 37–
`
`38. Patent Owner does not refute that Safadi teaches a portable MP3 player,
`
`but asserts that the claimed “first device” in claim 4 and the device in claim
`
`33 cannot be Safadi’s MP3 player. Patent Owner asserts Safadi discloses a
`
`portable device, to which a modular component (the MP3 player) is
`
`attached, and that the MP3 player cannot constitute the portable (first)
`
`device. Prelim. Resp. 50. We disagree, as Safadi discloses that “the
`
`portable device may act as any one of a number of handheld devices,
`
`including but not limited to a cellular telephone, a pager, a web pad, . . . an
`
`MP3 player,” Ex. 1013 ¶ 1. Safadi describes elsewhere, in non-exclusive
`
`language, that the disclosed portable device “may be a web pad, a personal
`
`digital assistant,” and that the modular component of his invention “may
`
`21
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`comprise a web pad, a personal digital assistant . . . an audio playback
`
`device (e.g., an MP3 player or the like).” Id. ¶¶ 1, 17–18.
`
`Thus, Safadi teaches or suggests that its portable device and its
`
`modular component both may include multiple types of devices, including
`
`web pads, personal digital assistants, and MP3 players. For purposes of this
`
`Decision, we are persuaded that the MP3 player taught by Safadi may be the
`
`first device recited in claims 4 and 33.
`
`Patent Owner also contends Petitioner “fails to provide any rationale”
`
`to combine Safadi with Bi and Erekson. Prelim. Resp. 50–51. We are
`
`persuaded otherwise, as the Petition states:
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
`implement the navigator in Bi with a remote controller using a
`device that provides at least one device identifier in order to
`provide for selection of a device to control as disclosed in
`Erekson (as set forth above . . . and in IPR2013-00598). It
`would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
`in view of Safadi that such a remote controller could comprise
`an MP3 player to provide the desirable combined functionality
`and convenience of a PDA/MP3 player/remote controller as
`disclosed in Safadi. (citing Ex. 1002 (Bove Decl). ¶¶ 26-28.)
`Just as in the case of the combination of Bi and Erekson, the
`further combination with Safadi would have simply entailed
`applying a known technique to improve a known remote
`controller device by providing
`the desirable feature of
`combining an MP3 player, PDA, and remote controller in a
`single device, and the result would have been predictable.
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 28.) See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417–22.
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 22
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`On this record, for purposes of this Decision, we are persuaded by the
`
`Petitioner’s evidence as to claims 4 and 33.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Other Grounds
`
`All other alleged grounds of unpatentability in the Petition are
`
`redundant in light of the above grounds of unpatentability on the basis of
`
`which we institute review for the same claims.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded the information presented
`
`in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`
`establishing unpatentability of claims 5 and 34 of the ’873 patent as obvious
`
`over Bi, Erekson, and Ausems, and of claims 4 and 33 as obvious over Bi,
`
`Erekson, and Safadi.
`
`The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of
`
`any challenged claims of the construction of any claim term.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is
`
`hereby instituted as to the following claims and grounds:
`
`1.
`
`Claims 5 and 34 of the ’873 patent are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Bi, Erekson, and
`
`Ausems;
`
`23
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 23
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00766
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`2.
`
`Claims 4 and 33 of the ’873 patent are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Bi, Erekson, and
`
`Safadi; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other grounds are authorized.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
`
`commences on the entry date of this decision.
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David Fehrman
`patentdocket@mofo.com
`
`Mehran Arjomand
`patentdocket@mofo.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Lana Gladstein
`gladsteinl@pepperlaw.com
`
`Thomas Engellenner
`engellennert@pepperlaw.com
`
`Christopher Horgan
`chris.horgan@concerttechnology.com
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`SONOS 1011 - Page 24
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
