`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SONOS, INC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00590
`
`Patent No. 8,050,652
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CORRECTED PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,050,652 PURSUANT TO
`35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. and 37 CFR § 42.1 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`1
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`UNDER 37 CFR § 42.22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`4
`
`4
`
`6
`
`12
`
`III. STANDING TO FILE PETITION
`
`UNDER 37 CFR §§ 42.101 – 103. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`IV. PETITION REQUIREMENTS
`UNDER 37 CFR § 42.104. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`V. REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`UNDER 37 CFR § 42.22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`A.
`
`Technology Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,187,947 to White et al.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,199,076 to Logan et al.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,020,704 to Lipscomb et al.. . . . . . . . . . 22
`
`B.
`
`The ‘652 Patent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of the ‘652 Patent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
`
`Prosecution History Summary of the ‘652 Patent. . . . . . 29
`
`C.
`
`Identification of Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Challenge #1: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
`
`Challenge #2: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
`
`D. Challenge #1: White Renders Obvious Claims 1, 21, 42 and
`63 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`
`
`30
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E. Challenge #2: The Combination of Lipscomb and Logan
`Renders Obvious Claims 1, 42 and 63
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`
`
`
`V. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
`
`42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`DESCRIPTION
`EXHIBIT
`SONOS 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,050,652
`SONOS 1002 BHM’s Complaint for Black Hills Media, LLC v. Sonos, Inc., Case
`No. 1:12-cv-00637-RGA (D. Del.)
`SONOS 1003 BHM’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for BHM’s Complaint
`for Black Hills Media, LLC v. Sonos, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-
`00637-RGA (D. Del.)
`SONOS 1004 Delaware District Court’s Transfer Order, dated August 5, 2013
`SONOS 1005 California District Court’s Scheduling Order, dated November 12,
`2013
`SONOS 1006 Motion to Dismiss FAC, dated December 11, 2013
`SONOS 1007 California District Court’s Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
`FAC, dated January 14, 2014
`SONOS 1008 BHM’s Complaint for Black Hills Media, LLC v. Sonos, Inc., Case
`No. 2:14-cv-00486-SJO-PJW (C.D. Cal.)
`SONOS 1009 Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in Yamaha Corporation of
`American v. Black Hills Media, LLC, Case No. IPR2014-00766
`(Paper 6; Dated: August 28, 2014)
`Institution Decision in Yamaha Corporation of American v. Black
`Hills Media, LLC, Case No. IPR2014-00766 (Paper 7; Dated:
`November 24, 2014)
`SONOS 1011 Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review Pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. § 42.108 in Yamaha Corp. of America v. Black Hills
`Media, LLC, Case IPR2013-00594 (March 20, 2014)
`SONOS 1012 Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D (“Wolfe Declaration”)
`SONOS 1013 U.S. Patent No. 5,168,481 to Culbertson et al. (“Culbertson”)
`SONOS 1014 U.S. Patent No. 5,616,876 to Cluts (“Cluts”)
`SONOS 1015 Nielsen, J., Desurvire, H., Kerr, R., Rosenberg, D., Salomon, G.,
`Molich, R., and Stewart, T., “Comparative Design Review: An
`Exercise in Parallel Design,” Proc. ACM INTERCHI’93 Conf.
`(Apr. 24-29, 1993) (“Nielsen”)
`SONOS 1016 Hacker, S. “MP3: The Definitive Guide by Scot Hacker” March,
`2000 (Springer) (“Hacker”)
`SONOS 1017 U.S. Patent No. 7,187,947 to White et al. (“White”).
`SONOS 1018 U.S. Patent No. 6,199,076 to Logan et al. (“Logan”)
`
`SONOS 1010
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`DESCRIPTION
`EXHIBIT
`SONOS 1019 U.S. Patent No. 7,020,704 to Lipscomb et al. (“Lipscomb”)
`SONOS 1020 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/157,736 (“the ‘736
`provisional” or “the ‘736 app”)
`SONOS 1021 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/176,829 (“the ‘829
`provisional” or “the ‘829 app.”)
`SONOS 1022 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/176,830 (“the ‘830
`provisional” or “the ‘830 app.”)
`SONOS 1023 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/176,833 (“the ‘833
`provisional” or “the ‘833 app.”)
`SONOS 1024 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/177,063 (“the ‘063
`provisional” or the “063 app.”)
`SONOS 1025 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/177,783 (“the ‘783
`provisional” or “the ‘783 app.”)
`SONOS 1026 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/177,867 (“the ‘867
`provisional” or “the ‘867 app.”)
`SONOS 1027 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/177,884 (“the ‘884
`provisional” or “the ‘884 app.”)
`SONOS 1028 File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,050,652
`SONOS 1029 Jaffrey Declaration
`SONOS 1030 Rio 500 Manual
`SONOS 1031 Real Networks Case Study
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. and 37 CFR § 42.1 et seq., Sonos, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner” or “Sonos”) hereby petitions the Patent and Trial Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB”) to institute an Inter Partes Review of Claims 1, 21, 42 and 63 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,050,652 (“the ‘652 Patent”; SONOS 1001). The ‘652 Patent issued
`
`on June 29, 2004, resulting from U.S. Patent Application No. 11/563,232 (“the
`
`‘232 Application”), filed on November 27, 2006. According to USPTO records,
`
`the ‘652 Patent is currently assigned to Black Hills Media, LLC (“BHM”).
`
`This petition for Inter Partes Review (the “Petition”) demonstrates a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to challenged Claims
`
`1, 21, 42 and 63 (“Challenged Claims”) of the ‘652 Patent. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Petitioner asserts that the Challenged Claims are obvious over the asserted prior
`
`art, and therefore should be cancelled.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest: 37 CFR 42.8(b)(1). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`312(a)(2), the real party-in-interest is Sonos, Inc., a corporation organized under
`
`the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business at 223 E. De
`
`La Guerra Street, Santa Barbara, California 93101.
`
`Related Matters: 37 CFR 42.8(b)(2): On May 22, 2012, BHM filed a
`
`complaint against Sonos in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware,
`
`alleging infringement of eight patents, including the ‘652 Patent (collectively “First
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Asserted Patents”). SONOS 1002. In addition, BHM filed a similar complaint
`
`against Yamaha Corporation of America (“Yamaha”). Black Hills Media, LLC v.
`
`Yamaha Corp. of America, No. 1:12-cv-00635-RGA (D. Del.) (“Yamaha
`
`Litigation”). BHM never served these complaints. Furthermore, as discussed
`
`below, BHM did not then own the patents-in-suit in either complaint.
`
`On September 11, 2012, BHM filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”)
`
`against Sonos, alleging infringement of the original eight patents (including the
`
`‘652 Patent), plus three additional patents. See SONOS 1003. BHM served Sonos
`
`with the FAC on September 12, 2012.1
`
`On August 5, 2013, the Delaware Court transferred the case to the U.S.
`
`District Court for the Central District of California. SONOS 1004. In November
`
`2013, the California Court ordered BHM to file evidence of the chain of title for
`
`the asserted patents. SONOS 1005. In December 2013, Sonos moved to dismiss
`
`for lack of standing because BHM did not own the allegedly infringed patents
`
`when it filed the original complaint in Delaware in May 2012. SONOS 1006.
`
`On January 14, 2014, the California Court dismissed the FAC without
`
`prejudice and further ordered BHM to file and serve “new complaints in the
`
`1 Similarly, on September 12, 2012 and September 19, 2012, respectively, BHM
`
`filed and served a first amended complaint against Yamaha, alleging infringement
`
`of six patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,214,873 (“the ‘873 Patent”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Central District of California” by January 21, 2014. SONOS 1007. In dismissing
`
`the FAC, the California Court 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 p. 2.
`
`On January 21, 2014, BHM filed and served a new complaint, Case No.
`
`2:14-cv-00486-SJO-PJW (C.D. Cal.) (“Underlying Litigation”), alleging
`
`infringement by Sonos of, inter alia, the ‘652 Patent. SONOS 1008.
`
`Lead/Back-up Counsel and Service Info – 37 CFR § 42.8(b)(3)-(4):
`
`Lead Counsel
`George I. Lee
`Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP
`150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2400
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Sean M. Sullivan
`Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP
`150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2400
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`Rory P. Shea
`Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP
`150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2400
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`
`
`Tel: (312) 754-9602
`Fax: (312) 754-9603
`Email: lee@leesullivanlaw.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 39,269
`
`
`Tel: (312) 754-9602
`Fax: (312) 754-9603
`Email: sullivan@leesullivanlaw.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 40,191
`
`Tel: (312) 754-9602
`Fax: (312) 754-9603
`Email: shea@leesullivanlaw.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 60,529
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`John Dan Smith
`Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP
`150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2400
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`II.
`
`Tel: (312) 754-9602
`Fax: (312) 754-9603
`Email: smith@leesullivanlaw.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 66,743
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED UNDER 37 CFR § 42.22
`
`Petitioner asks that the PTAB review the asserted prior art and below
`
`analysis, institute a trial for Inter Partes Review of Claims 1, 21, 42 and 63 of the
`
`‘652 Patent, and cancel those claims as unpatentable.
`
`III. STANDING TO FILE PETITION UNDER 37 CFR §§ 42.101 – 103
`
`Sonos has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the
`
`‘652 Patent. In addition, this Petition has been filed within one year after Sonos
`
`was served with a jurisdictionally-proper complaint alleging infringement of the
`
`‘652 Patent, i.e., the Complaint served on January 21, 2014 in pending Case No.
`
`2:14-cv-00486-SJO-PJW. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b); SONOS
`
`1008. Petitioner is also not estopped from challenging the claims on the grounds
`
`identified in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(c). Thus, the filing of this
`
`Petition is proper under 37 CFR § 42.101.
`
`In Yamaha Corporation of American v. Black Hills Media, LLC, Case No.
`
`IPR2014-00766 (“the Yamaha IPR”), BHM argued – on the same facts present
`
`here – that the FAC filed and served in September 2012 started the clock for the
`
`one year statutory bar under § 315(b). SONOS 1010, pp. 3-6. The Yamaha IPR
`
`was filed against the ‘873 Patent, one of the First Asserted Patents. BHM argued
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`that the Yamaha IPR petition that was filed in May 2014 was barred because it was
`
`filed more than one year after service of the FAC in September 2012. Id.
`
`The Board rejected BHM’s argument, however, and instituted the Yamaha
`
`IPR on November 24, 2014. See SONOS 1010 (“Institution Decision”), pp. 8-9.
`
`Specifically, in its Institution Decision, the Board found that:
`
`[T]he 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, 1309-10
`(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.
`
`Id. Moreover, the Board distinguished the cases cited by BHM because the earlier
`
`lawsuits in those cases, just like the original and first amended lawsuits in the
`
`present IPR, were “not jurisdictionally defective for lack of standing.” Id. at 9.
`
`The procedural history for the Underlying Litigation here is essentially the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`same as the Yamaha Litigation. Thus, for the same reasons as expressed in the
`
`Institution Decision for the Yamaha IPR, and since the instant Petition is being
`
`filed on January 21, 2015 – which is not more than one year after the service of
`
`BHM’s complaint on January 21, 2014 – this Petition should be allowed under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b) and 37 CFR § 42.101(b).
`
`Timing – 37 CFR § 42.102: The ‘652 Patent was filed before March 16,
`
`2013, granted on November 21, 2013, and a post-grant review has not been
`
`initiated. Thus, the timing for this Petition is proper under 37 CFR § 42.102(a).
`
`Fees – 37 CFR § 42.103: With the filing of this Petition, Sonos is paying
`
`both the $9,000 request fee set forth in 37 CFR § 42.15(a)(1), as well as the
`
`$14,000 post-institution fee set forth in 37 CFR § 42.15(a)(2). However, Petitioner
`
`authorizes a debit from Deposit Account No. 50-6632 for whatever additional
`
`payment is necessary in filing and/or granting this Petition.
`
`IV. PETITION REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 CFR § 42.104
`
`Standing: 37 CFR § 42.104(a). Petitioner certifies that the ‘652 Patent is
`
`available for Inter Partes Review and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting an Inter Partes Review on the grounds identified in the Petition.
`
`Claims challenged: 37 CFR § 42.104(b)(1). Petitioner requests review of
`
`Claims 1, 21, 42 and 63 of the ‘652 Patent.
`
`Specific Statutory Grounds: 37 CFR § 42.104(b)(2). For the reasons set
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`forth herein, Petitioner submits that the Challenged Claims are obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 in view of the asserted prior art.
`
`Claim Construction: 37 CFR § 42.104(b)(3) and Effective Filing Date.
`
`For purposes of an Inter Partes Review, claim terms in an unexpired patent
`
`should be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which it appears. See 37 CFR 42.100(b). Using the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction,” claim terms are given their “ordinary and customary
`
`meaning,” as 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) (quoting Philllips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc)). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth with “reasonable
`
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994).
`
`The terms “playlist assigned to the electronic device” and “wherein ones of
`
`the plurality of songs are not stored on the electronic device,” were added to the
`
`independent claims by amendment, warranting discussion as to their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
`
`1.
`
`“Playlist Assigned to the Electronic Device”
`
`The term “playlist assigned to the electronic device” appears in independent
`
`claims 1, 21, 42 and 63.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`In IPR2013-00594 (SONOS 1011), the Board construed “playlist” and a
`
`“playlist assigned to the electronic device” to respectively mean “a list of audio
`
`files or URLs of where the audio files were retrieved from” and “a list of audio
`
`files or URLs of where the audio files were retrieved from directed to a particular
`
`device selected by a user.” SONOS 1011, pp. 11-13. Petitioner submits that, for the
`
`reasons provided by the Board in IPR2013-00594, these constructions should apply
`
`to the meaning of these terms in the present proceeding as well.
`
`The assigning playlists is described in connection with FIGS. 15, 17, and 19
`
`at 4:50-5:3, 21:40-23:5, 24:44-60, and 28:11-30:26. The Summary of the
`
`Invention (4:50-58) states the invention “is a method for assigning playlists of
`
`music from one electronic device to another” and “[t]he software module allows a
`
`user to assign a playlist from a first device to a second device.” SONOS 1001. FIG.
`
`17C illustrates the assigning operation by selecting “Make available on” and
`
`selecting a device. Id. As stated at 24:50-53, “[t]he user can choose the menu
`
`option of ‘Make Available On’ to assign the playlist from one device to another
`
`(e.g., from device 1510 to device 1520).” Id. Assigning playlists is disclosed as
`
`assigning a playlist from one device to another by selecting the device to which the
`
`playlist is to be transferred. The term “playlist assigned to the electronic device” is
`
`therefore be construed as a list of songs that is to be transferred to a particular
`
`device selected by the user. SONOS 1012, ¶¶ 37-41.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`2.
`
`“Wherein Ones of the Plurality of Songs Are Not Stored on
`the Electronic Device”
`
`
`The term “wherein ones of the plurality of songs are not stored on the
`
`electronic device” is in independent claims 1, 21, 42 and 63 of the '652 patent. In
`
`IPR2013-00594, the Board construed it to mean “wherein at least one of the
`
`plurality of songs is not stored on the electronic device.” SONOS 1011, pp. 13-14.
`
`For the Boards reasons in IPR2013-00594, this construction should apply in the
`
`present proceeding as well.
`
`The specification describes networked electronic devices 1510 and 1520
`
`each having its own storage space to store songs. SONOS 1001, at 21:43-44. When
`
`a playlist is assigned to a device, songs not stored on the device are provided to the
`
`device and stored. Id. at FIG. 15; 21:40-22:15. The plain claim language means the
`
`electronic device can store songs—otherwise the limitation would have no
`
`meaning. See, e.g., Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 546 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994) (“All limitations of a claim must be considered meaningful.”); see also
`
`SONOS 1012 ¶¶ 40-41.
`
`In the Summary of the Invention (3:57-4:9), it is stated that embodiments of
`
`the audio device may not have storage for songs. SONOS 1001. However, this
`
`embodiment is inconsistent with the claim language. Selecting a playlist for
`
`playback is not the same operation as assigning a playlist to a device. SONOS
`
`1012, ¶¶ 38-40. The assigning operation is described in the specification as
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`selecting a device and transferring songs to the device for storage. Id. In this
`
`regard, during prosecution of related U.S. Patent No. 8,045,952, the same
`
`Examiner evaluated the same specification and the same claim language as in the
`
`'652 patent and considered that the device had memory to store songs:
`
`Regarding claim 1, none of the prior arts of record, in combination or
`individual, show or make it obvious a network-enable audio device of
`identifying ones of the plurality of songs in the playlist that are not
`stored on the electronic device and providing information to the
`electronic device enabling the electronic device to obtain the ones of
`the plurality of songs that are not stored on the electronic device from
`at least one remote source (check the electronic device’s data storage
`space for songs listed on the assigned playlist and a network
`connection is made to upload the file if the songs needed to from the
`playlist are not stored on the electronic device’s data storage space,
`see specification 0021).
`Office Action at 3-4 (Feb. 2, 2011).
`
`The manner in which the Examiner read the claim language demonstrates
`
`how one of ordinary skill in the art would have construed the claim. Salazar v.
`
`Procter & Gamble Co., 414 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Although
`
`unilateral statements by an examiner do not give rise to a clear disavowal of claim
`
`scope by an applicant, it does not necessarily follow that such statements are not
`
`pertinent to construing claim terms. Statements about a claim term made by an
`
`examiner during prosecution of an application may be evidence of how one of skill
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`in the art understood the term at the time the application was filed.”).
`
`Such is also consistent with the prosecution of the '652 patent. As noted
`
`above, both of the “not stored” and “assigned to” limitations were in originally
`
`filed dependent claims and were added to the independent claims in response to a
`
`rejection. SONOS 1028, 274-90. The dependent claims track the embodiments of
`
`the system described in the specification that are directed to assignment of playlists
`
`and storage of songs from the playlist, and not to a broader system without storage.
`
`Accordingly, “wherein ones of the plurality of songs are not stored on the
`
`electronic device,” read consistently with the specification, requires that the device
`
`have a storage for storing songs. In other words, “wherein ones of the plurality of
`
`songs are not stored on the electronic device” cannot be construed to encompass an
`
`electronic device that has no storage for songs. SONOS 1012. ¶¶ 40-41.
`
`3.
`
`Effective Filing Date
`
`The ‘652 Patent resulted from a chain of applications beginning in 1998 with
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/072,127 (filed January 22, 1998) (“the ‘127
`
`app.”), and U.S. Patent Application No. 09/096,703 (filed on June 12, 1998) (“the
`
`‘703 app.”). The ‘652 Patent also claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application
`
`No. 60/246,842 (filed on November 8, 2000) (“the ‘842 app.”) and U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 09/805,470 (filed on March 12, 2001) (“the ‘470 app.”). The ‘652
`
`Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 11/563,232 (filed on November 27,
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`2006), which is a continuation of the ‘470 application and claims priority to the
`
`‘470 and ‘703 applications, as well as the ‘127 and ‘842 applications.
`
`The ‘652 Patent is not, however, entitled to claim priority to each of these
`
`applications. The independent claims of the ‘652 Patent recites a “playlist
`
`identifying a plurality of songs.” This claim language was not disclosed in the
`
`chain of applications leading to the ‘652 Patent until the ‘842 application, which
`
`was filed on November 8, 2000. For that reason, the earliest possible priority date
`
`of the claims of the ‘652 Patent is November 8, 2000. SONOS 1012, ¶ 8.
`
`Unpatentability under 37 CFR § 42.104(b)(4)-(5). For the reasons set
`
`forth in detail below, a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail exists with
`
`respect to each of the Challenged Claims based on anticipation under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 in view of the asserted prior art, alone or in combination.
`
`V. REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF UNDER 37 CFR § 42.22
`
`In light of the asserted prior art, Petitioner asks that the PTAB institute a trial
`
`for Inter Partes Review of the Challenged Claims and cancel those unpatentable.
`
`Here, an IPR on the ‘652 Patent has already been instituted on behalf of Samsung,
`
`and LG has also filed for an IPR (IPR2015-00334) on the same grounds here.
`
`A.
`
`Technology Overview
`
`Paragraphs 27 to 31 of the Wolfe Declaration, SONOS 1012, describe the
`
`state of the art regarding online and mobile audio services in the 1999-2000
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`timeframe. Using a “playlist” to represent a list of songs or audio files so that
`
`users could select, play, and manipulate was well known in the art by the mid to
`
`late 1990s. The RioPort Audio Manager provided a graphical user interface
`
`(GUIs) for users to select and play music transmitted from a central database in a
`
`network. Consumer products with playlist functions had become common by the
`
`year 2000.
`
`For example, Culbertson shows that in the context of radio broadcast
`
`stations, it was known to compile a scheduled playlist from various music
`
`selections and pre-recorded materials having known durations or runtimes.
`
`SONOS 1013, at 1:15-18. Compact disc players are used to “sequentially play a
`
`predetermined list of musical selections and commercial or informational
`
`messages.” Id. at 1:50-51. A display device shows “information contained in the
`
`playlist to allow an operator to obtain information about the music . . . played as
`
`well as those selections that will be played subsequently.” Id. at 2:51-55.
`
`Cluts describes a system in an interactive network allowing consumers to
`
`select “playlists” in the form of a predetermined collection of songs, and review
`
`the contents of the playlists, select songs in the playlist, build and create playlists,
`
`and display general information associated with the currently playing album or
`
`song. SONOS 1014, at 4:38-54, 11:40-43, 12:55-65, 13:24-27, 13:50-62, 15:14-
`
`25.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`The implementation and use of playlists through a GUI on a PC to allow
`
`users to select and play music transmitted from a database over a network was also
`
`well known before 1999. For example, Nielsen discloses selecting songs, making
`
`multiple selections for a particular time interval, (e.g., 45 mins. of music), selecting
`
`random songs in a selected genre (singer, musician, style), and manipulating the
`
`selected songs to pause, fast forward, skip, and rewind. SONOS 1015, pp. 414-
`
`417.
`
`According to Nielsen, the Home Fiber Optic Music System included
`
`features, such as providing a “player view” that mimics a CD player and a “song
`
`list view.” SONOS 1015, p. 416. Music could be played from two types of
`
`objects: a personal CD object and a Catalog object; and the catalog object
`
`supported “query” and “history lists” in the song list view. Id.
`
`Available were tools to make playlists through a GUI to play music over a
`
`network. See e.g., SONOS 1016, p. 56 (“playlist is just a plain text file naming the
`
`full paths to the selected songs. . . . Playlists for players that can handle streaming
`
`or broadcast MP3 can also store URL’s to your favorite broadcast sites.”)
`
`Thus, as of 1999-2000, implementing playlists on a network-enabled audio
`
`device to select, manage, and manipulate audio content was well known in the art.
`
`Software to listen to Internet radio has existed since Internet radio began.
`
`SONOS 1012, ¶¶ 28-30. By the late 1990s, companies marketed software for real-
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`time streaming of audio. See, e.g., SONOS 1016, pp. 13-14. By 2000, freely
`
`available software for laptops or PCs enabled receipt of various audio content,
`
`including Internet radio broadcasts. SONSO 1012. ¶ 28.
`
`As made clear by the state of the art, and the prior art below, by November
`
`2000, the purported inventions of the ’652 Patent were well known.
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 7,187,947 to White et al. (SONOS 1017)
`
`White was filed in the U.S. on March 28, 2000, issued on March 6, 2007,
`
`and qualifies as prior art to the ‘652 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). White was
`
`cited during prosecution of the ‘652 Patent, but was not used in any rejections.
`
`White is directed to a system communicating information to an electronic
`
`device including “audio information such as songs, on-line radio stations, on-line
`
`broadcasts, streaming audio.” SONOS 1017 at 3:59-61. White allows a “listener
`
`to create a personal playlist and to listen to this playlist in a wireless atmosphere
`
`while enjoying CD quality sound.” Id. at 2:7-10. White’s Figure 4 is below:
`
`w .05
`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Mar. 6, 2007
`
`Sheet 4 0f 9
`
`US 7,187,947 B1
`
`Nov
`
`mow
`
`6%:
`225a 5 5E E5 2Q
`
`oov
`
`Emmi/6L F :5 Fmmohw @ 52mm:
`
`hf as“ w? 8v 8v 8v
`$ 25 99E El; 0% />
`, ll
`..7 o;
`
`® 6 2925 @ 33%
`
`8 @ m _ AW as.
`
`w- >>u2 k8 £23m H _v A 2925 5%
`
`15
`
`4/
`N; r “$35M mg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 shows graphical user interface 400 for displaying selectable audio
`
`information. SONOS 1017, at 11:6-15. Interface 400 may be displayed as a web
`
`page. Id. This interface allows users to view radio dial 412 or “a current playlist
`
`selected by the user or the status of [a] wirelessly communicated playlist.” Id. at
`
`11:26-33. Program interface 413 is used to specify items to be displayed by radio
`
`dial 412. Id. at 12:29-30. These items may include Internet and broadcast radio
`
`stations or playlists. Id. at 12:30- 36.
`
`Figure 8 of White is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Figure 8 depicts a method for providing selected audio information to an electronic
`
`device. SONOS 1017, at 3:40-42. At step 800, the user accesses a web page such
`
`as the home page of Figure 4. Id. at 15:64-67. At step 801, the user selects “a
`
`single song, a plurality . . . of songs, an entire album, a broadcast station, streaming
`
`audio, etc. or other selectable audio information.” Id. at 16:3-6. A playlist is
`
`created at step 802 reflecting the user’s audio selections. Id. at 16:6-9, 17:56-
`
`18:19. A list of information is compiled at step 803 including associated playlist
`
`information, such as network or URL locations for the audio information. Id. at
`
`16:12-14. At step 804, the user then selects a device such as “a[n] automobile
`
`audio system, a home stereo system, a home computer, an electronic device
`
`coupled to a home network or computer system, etc.[,] or other locations or
`
`devices operable to receive the selected audio information.” Id. at 16:24-28. The
`
`playlist and associated information are sent to the electronic device for the user to
`
`execute the playlist (812, 814). Id. at 16:35-45, 17:7-18.
`
`White’s device “may be integrated into an audio component such as a radio
`
`receiver” or “coupled to a home audio system, a portable radio system or other
`
`system to provide a versatile electronic device operable to receive wirelessly
`
`communicated selected audio information.” SONOS 1017, at 9:53-57, 10:38-42.
`
`The electronic device may be coupled to an optical disc player such as a CD player
`
`or “storage medium 303 such as a high speed buffer, programmable memory, or
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`other devices operable to store information.” Id. at 18:46-50, 8:46-52, 8:67-9:5.
`
`White thus discloses at least an Internet radio mode of operation (3:59-61
`
`and 2:7-10); a playlist mode of operation (Fig. 8 elements 813, 807, 808, 16:3-4);
`
`assigning a playlist to a player device, where some of the songs are not stored on
`
`the player device (15:62-16:34, Fig. 4, 11:66-12:7, Fig. 8, 17:32-35); a control
`
`system for carrying out the functionality of its player device (8:52-62, 12:38-54,
`
`Figs. 3-4); and receiving information from a central system enabling the player to
`
`obtain missing songs from a remote source (16:11-19).
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 6,199,076 to Logan et al. (SONOS 1018)
`
`Logan was filed on October 2, 1996, issued on March 6, 2001, and therefore
`
`qualifies as prior art to the ‘652 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). A family member
`
`of Logan, U.S. published patent application No. US 2004/0255340, was cited
`
`during prosecution of the ‘652 Patent, but was not used in any rejections.
`
`
`
`Logan discloses an information distribution system that allows player
`
`devices to play back audio program segments, such as music. SONOS 1018, at
`
`2:6-43, 5:60-65. The audio player plays back the audio program segment files in
`
`accordance with a schedule file, which is created in the first instance by a host
`
`server, which develops and transmits the schedule file to the player. Id. at 2:47-50;
`
`7:1-13. The schedule file consists of a sequence of program segment identification
`
`numbers, which determines the sequence of events that occur during playback. Id.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`at 7:1-13, 12:3-15, 17:59-61 and Fig. 4. The schedule file is thus a “playlist.”
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Logan, which presents schematic diagrams of host server 101
`
`and player 103, is provided below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 34
`
`Logan di