IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`
`APPLE INC. AND TWITTER, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SUMMIT 6, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00685
`Patent 7,765,482
`_____________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,765,482
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`Submitted by:
`/Jason D. Eisenberg/
`Jason D. Eisenberg, Reg. No. 43,447
`February 4, 2015
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`

`
`765,482
`
`..... 1 
`..... 2 
`..... 2 
`..... 3 
`..... 3 
`..... 5 
`..... 5 
`
`..... 7 
`..... 9 
`
`... 12 
`
`... 12 
`
`... 12 
`
`... 13 
`
`... 15 
`
`... 21 
`
`
`
`TABLE OOF CONTTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`O A B C
`
`SP
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`VI. 
`
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`INNTRODUCCTION ......................................................
`
`..................................
`
`OVERVIEWW .............
`
`..................................
`................
`
`..................................
`A. 
`
`
`
`
`The aalleged invvention of tthe ’482 paatent .........
`
`..................................
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`Relatted Reexammination ....................................
`
`..................................
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`State of the prioor art ..........................................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`III.  LLEVEL OFF ORDINAARY SKILLL IN THE
` ART .......
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`.................IV.  CCLAIM COONSTRUCCTION ......................
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`SUMMARYY OF PRIOOR ART FFORMINGG THE BA
`
`SIS OF THHIS
`
`
`
`
`PETITION ..................................................................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`IDDENTIFICCATION OOF CHALLLENGE (3
`
`
`)) ..............7 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)
`
`
`
`AA.  Grouund 1: Claimms 1, 4, 6,
`
`
`25, and 511 would haave been
` 8, 10, 12,
`
`
`obvioous over CCreamer. .....................................
`
`
`
`..................................
`1. 
`
`
`
`
`
`ent its dependeim 1, and ibvious claiCreamer renders ob
`
`
`
`claims 4,, 6, 8, and 10 .............................
`
`..................................
`a)
`
`
`
`
`method of [1..P]: A commputer impllemented m
`pre-
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`proocessing ddigital conteent in a cliient devicee for
`
`
`
`subbsequent eelectronic ppublishing
`
`. .................................
`
`
`
`[1..1.1]: receiiving pre-pprocessing
`
`parameterrs from a
`
`
`
`remmote devicce ...............................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`[1..1.2]: said pre-processsing parammeters inclluding a
`
`
`
`
`
`specificationn of an amoount of diggital contennt ..............
`
`
`
`
`
`[1..1.3]: said digital conntent includding one oor more of
`
`
`
`
`
`immage contennt, video coontent, andd audio conntent. .......
`... 17 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[1..2.1]: receiiving an iddentificatioon of a grouup of one oor
`ontent for
`... 18 
`
`
`moore items oof digital co
`
`transmissiion ............
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[1..2.2]: a colllective diggital contennt of said ggroup of onne
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or more itemms of digitaal content bbeing limitted by saidd
`... 20 
`
`
`
`
`
`recceived pre--processingg parameteers .............................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[1..3.1]: pre-pprocessing said identtified groupp of one orr
`
`
`
`
`
`moore items oof digital coontent usinng said recceived pre-
`
`
`
`proocessing parameters ..................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`[1..3.2]: said received ppre-processsing parammeters
`ntrolling s
`co
`
`
`
`aid client ddevice in aa placemennt of said
`
`b)
` 
`
`c)
`
` 
`
`d)
` 
`
`e)
`
` 
`
`f)
` 
`
`g)
` 
`
`h)
` 
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Petitionn for Inter PPartes Revview of Pattent No. 7,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petitionn for Inter PPartes Revview of Pattent No. 7,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`765,482
`
`i)
`
` 
`
`j)
`
` 
`
`k)
` 
`
`l)
`
` 
`
`m)
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ideentified grooup of onee or more ittems of diggital conte
`nt
`
`
`
`intto a specifiied form inn preparati
`
`on for pubblication to
` one
`
`
`
`
`
`or more deviices that arre remote ffrom a servver device
`and
`
`
`
`saiid client deevice..........................
`
`..................................
`... 23 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[1..4]: transmmitting saidd pre-proceessed groupp of one orr
`
`
`
`
`moore items oof digital coontent to ssaid server
`
`device forr
`
`
`subbsequent ppublishing
`
`
`
`to said onee or more ddevices thaat
`
`
`
`
`
`
`aree remote frrom said seerver devicce and saidd client devvice
`... 24 
`
`
`
` .....................................................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[4..1] whereinn said receeiving an iddentificatioon comprisses
`
`
`
`
`recceiving an identificattion of a pllurality of
`items of
`... 26 
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`diggital contennt. .............................
`
`
`
`processingg comprisees reducingg a
`
`
`[6..1] whereinn said pre-
`... 27 
`
`
`
`
`
`file size or coompressingg said digiital contentt................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[8..1] transmiitting identtifying infoormation ffor said pree-
`
`
`
`
`proocessed grroup of onee or more iitems of di
`
`gital conteent.
`
`..................................
`... 28 
`
`
`
` .....................................................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[100.1]: whereein said prre-processiing compriises resizinng
`... 28 
`
`
`
`saiid digital ccontent .......................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`Creamer renders obbvious claiim 12. ......
`
`..................................
`... 29 
`a)
`
`
`
`[122.P]: a commputer impplemented
`
`method off pre-
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`proocessing mmedia objeccts in a loccal device ffor subsequuent
`... 29 
`
`
`
`traansmissionn to a remotte device .
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`[122.1]: receivving pre-prrocessing pparameterss from a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`remmote devicce, said pree-processinng parametters includiing
`
`
`
`
`
`a sspecificatioon of an ammount of mmedia data ..................
`... 30 
`
`
`
`
`
`[122.2]: receivving an ideentificationn of a grouup of one o
`r
`
`
`
`
`
`
`moore media objects forr transmisssion, a colllective meddia
`
`
`
`
`
`
`daata of said ggroup of onne or moree media obbjects beingg
`... 33 
`
`
`limmited by saaid receive
`
`
`d pre-proccessing parrameters ....
`-processin
`
`[122.3.1]: pre
`
`
`
`ng said idenntified grouup of one oor
`
`
`moore media objects usiing said re
`
`
`
`ceived pree-processinng
`... 36 
`
`
`
`paarameters ....................................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[122.3.2]: wheerein said ppre-processsing compprises encooding
`... 37 
`
`
`
`
`
`or otherwise convertingg said meddia object ...................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[122.4]: transmmitting saiid pre-proccessed grouup of one oor
`... 37 
`
`
`moore media objects to
`
`
`the remotee device .....................
`
`
`
`Creamer renders obbvious claiim 25. ......
`
`..................................
`... 38 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`b)
` 
`
`c)
`
` 
`
`d)
` 
`
`e)
`
` 
`
`f)
` 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`-e
`
`
`
`client deviice
`
`765,482
`
`a)
`
` 
`
`b)
` 
`
`c)
`
` 
`
`d)
` 
`
`e)
`
` 
`
`f)
` 
`
`4. 
`
`b)
` 
`
`c)
`
` 
`
`d)
` 
`
`e)
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`[255.P]: A commputer impplementedd method o
`f pre-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`proocessing mmedia objeccts in a loccal device ffor subsequuent
`... 38 
`
`
`
`traansmissionn to a remotte device .
`
`..................................
`
`
`[255.1]: receivving an ideentificationn of a mediia object foor
`
`
`
`
`... 40 
`
`
`
`
`
`traansmissionn to said remmote devicce” .............................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[255.2.1]: pre-processinng said idenntified meddia object aat
`
`
`
`
`
`saiid local devvice in acccordance wwith one orr more pre-
`
`
`proocessing parameters
`that are re
`
`ceived fromm a device
`
`
`
`
`sepparate fromm said cliennt device tto produce
`a pre-
`... 42 
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`proocessed meedia objectt ...............
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[255.2.2]: wheerein said ppre-processsing compprises encooding
`... 44 
`
`
`
`
`
`or otherwise convertingg said meddia object ...................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[255.3]: retrieeving informmation thaat enables iidentificatiion
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of f a user, saiid retrievedd informatiion being aavailable too
`
`
`saiid local devvice prior
`... 45 
`
`
`to said recceived idenntification .
`cal device
`
`
`
`
`[255.4]: transmmitting a mmessage froom said lo
`to
`
`
`
`saiid remote ddevice, saiid transmittted messagge includinng
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`saiid pre-proccessed meddia object aand said reetrieved
`... 46 
`
`infformation.
`
`.................................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`Creamer renders obbvious claiim 51. ......
`
`..................................
`... 47 
`a)
`
`
`
`[51.P]: a commputer impplemented
`
`
`method foor distributiing
` 
`
`
`diggital contennt that has been pre-pprocessed
`
`
`
`by a clientt
`
`
`device ...........................................
`
`..................................
`... 47 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[51.1.1]: receeiving, fromm said clieent device,, digital
`
`
`
`
`
`content that hhas been ppre-processsed at said
`
`
`
`
`accordancce with onee or more ppre-processsing
`in
`
`client deviice
`
`
`
`
`paarameters thhat have beeen providded to said
`
`
`... 48 client devvice ...........
`
`
`froom a devicce separate
`from said
`
`or more off
`
`
`
`
`[51.1.2]: saidd digital coontent incluuding one
`... 51 
`
`
`
`
`
`immage contennt, video coontent, andd audio conntent ........
`
`
`
`
`
`[51.1.3]: saidd one or mmore pre-proocessing pparameters
`
`
`
`
`
`controlling said client ddevice in aa placemennt of said
`
`
`
`
`
`
`diggital contennt into a sppecified foorm in prepparation forr
`
`
`
`disstribution tto one or mmore devic
`es that are
`
`remote froom a
`
`
`client deviice .............................
`... 51 
`
`
`serrver devicee and said
`
`
`
`
`
`[51.2]: publishing, by ssaid serverr device viaa an electroonic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`network, infoormation bbased on saaid pre-proocessed diggital
`co
`
`ntent to onne or more
`
`
`
`devices thhat are remmote from ssaid
`
`
`serrver devicee and said
`
`
`client deviice. ............................
`... 53 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitionn for Inter PPartes Revview of Pattent No. 7,
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`VII.  MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) .................................... 54 
`A. 
`Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................ 54 
`B. 
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................ 55 
`C. 
`Designation of Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. §
`42.8(b)(3)) ........................................................................................... 56 
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ..................................... 56 
`D. 
`VIII.  STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ............................................................ 56 
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), 42.105(a)) ..................... 57 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`
`B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Sys. Corp.,
`72 F.3d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 11
`
`Boston Scientific v. Cordis,
`554 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .............................................................................. 24
`
`Ex parte Yamaguchi,
`88 USPQ2d 1606 (B.P.A.I. 2008) .......................................................................... 7
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................. 10
`
`In re Giacomini,
`612 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 7
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 10, 11
`
`Leapfrog Enters, Inc.. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 10
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2014-00547, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2014) ............................................... 7
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Virginia Innovation Sciences ,Inc.,
`IPR2013-00569, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. March 6, 2014) .............................................. 5
`
`SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharmaceutical Corp.,
`225 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 11
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 10
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................... 1, 11
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 12
`
`Rules 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ................................................................................................ 56
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................................................................................... 56
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a) ............................................................................................... 56
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e) ................................................................................................. 56
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) .............................................................................................. 54
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................................................................................. 54
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .............................................................................................. 55
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .............................................................................................. 56
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .............................................................................................. 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`EXHIBIT LIST1
`
`Exh. No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482 to Wood et al., issued July 27, 2010
`(“the ’482 patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482, February 4, 2015 with
`Curriculum Vitae (“Lippman Decl.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,930,709 to Creamer et al., issued August 16,
`2005 (“Creamer”)
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/067,310 to Creamer,
`filed December 4, 1997 (“Creamer ’97”)
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/085,585 to Creamer,
`filed May 15, 1998 (“Creamer ’98”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,038,295 to Mattes, issued March 14, 2000
`(“Mattes”)
`Claim Construction Order, Summit 6 LLC v. Research in Motion
`Corp., CA No. 3:11-cv-367-O (N.D. Tex., May 21, 2012) (“Claim
`Constr. Order”)
`Partial File History of Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent
`7,764,482, Control No. 90/012,987 (“Reexam FH”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,612,515 to Wood et al., issued December 17,
`2013 (“the ’515 patent”)
`
`
`1 This Exhibit list covers two inter partes review petitions being filed against
`
`the ’515 patent and four inter partes review petitions being filed against the ’482
`
`patent. Not all exhibits are used in each petition or declaration, but to facilitate the
`
`Board’s review of the six petitions, the Petitions have used the same exhibit num-
`
`bers across all six petitions
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`Exh. No.
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`Description
`
`Intentionally Left Blank
`U.S. Patent No. 6,092,114 to Shaffer et al., issued July 18, 2000
`(“Shaffer”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,223,190 to Aihara et al., issued April 24, 2001
`(“Aihara”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,875,296 to Shi et al., issued February 23, 1999
`(“Shi”)
`EP 0838774A2 Application (DE), published April 29, 1998 (“Ban-
`dini”)
`Godin, You’ve Got Pictures: AOL’s Guide to Digital Imaging
`(1998) (“Godin”)
`Lu et al., eWorld – The Official Guide for Macintosh Users, Hay-
`den Books, 1994 (“eWorld”)
`Jain et al., “The Design and Performance of MedJava,” Proceed-
`ings of the 4th USENIX Conference, on Object-Oriented Technol-
`ogies and Systems (COOTS), April 1998 (“MedJava”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,018,774 to Mayle et al., issued January 25, 2000
`(“Mayle”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,567,122 to Anderson et al., issued May 20, 2003
`(“Anderson ’122”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,118,480 to Anderson et al., issued September 12,
`2000 (“Anderson ’480”)
`Rose et al., NeXTSTEP Applications Manual (1990)
`(“NeXTSTEP”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,370,193 to Lee et al., issued April 9, 2002
`(“Lee”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,075,528 to Curtis, issued June 13, 2000 (“Cur-
`tis”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,895,557 to Wood et al., issued May 17, 2005
`(“the ’557 patent”)
`Opening Claim Construction Brief of Plaintiff Summit 6, LLC,
`Summit 6 LLC v. HTC Corp., No. 7:14-cv-00014 (N.D. Tex. Dec.
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`Exh. No.
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`.
`
`Description
`29, 2014) (“Op. CC Brief”)
`Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief, Summit 6 LLC v.
`HTC Corp., No. 7:14-cv-00014 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 30, 2014) (“Def.
`Op. CC Brief”)
`Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement,
`Summit 6 LLC v. HTC Corp., No. 7:14-cv-00014 (N.D. Tex. Jan.
`27, 2014) (“Joint Claim Constr.”)
`Ahuja, Jasmine J., Client-Server Applications in Java, Pace Univ.
`Dec. 1997 (“Ahuja”)
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. jointly petition for inter partes review of claims
`
`1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 25, and 51 of United States Patent No. 7,765,482 to Wood et al.,
`
`titled “Web Based Media Submission Tool” (hereinafter “the ʼ482 patent”). The
`
`ʼ482 patent is provided as Exhibit 1001. This is the first of four petitions being
`
`filed against the ’482 patent. This first petition presents a single ground: Claims 1,
`
`4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 25, and 51 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Creamer.
`
`The different grounds set forth in the four ’482 petitions are independent,
`
`distinct, and not redundant. The first petition requests cancellation of claims 1, 4,
`
`6, 8, 10, 12, 25, and 51 of the ’482 patent as being obvious over Creamer. The sec-
`
`ond petition requests cancellation of claims 13, 14, 16-23, 35, 37, 38, 40-42, 44-46,
`
`and 49 as being obvious over Creamer. The third petition requests cancellation of
`
`claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 25, 37 and 51 as being obvious over Mattes. And the
`
`fourth petition requests cancellation of claims 13, 14, 19, 21-23, 38, 40-42, 44, 45
`
`and 49 as being obvious over Mattes and also asserts a second ground against
`
`claims 16-18, 20, 35, and 46 as being obvious over Mattes in view of Creamer. Pe-
`
`titioner minimized the petitions and references used to achieve a “just, speedy and
`
`inexpensive resolution” consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Accordingly, Petition-
`
`er requests full adoption of all proposed grounds in all four petitions.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`II. OVERVIEW
`A. The alleged invention of the ’482 patent
`The ’482 patent claims priority to U.S. Pat. No. 6,895,557 (“the ’557 pa-
`
`tent”), which has a filing date of July 21, 1999. The ’482 patent is directed to an
`
`“improved web-based media submission tool” that is “configurable to perform a
`
`variable amount of intelligent preprocessing on media objects prior to upload.”
`
`(’482 patent, Abstract.) As disclosed in the ’482 patent, the web-based media sub-
`
`mission tool comprises two primary components: (1) the media object identifier
`
`and (2) the media sender. (Id. at 3:10-14.)
`
`The primary task of the media object identifier is to place and associate a
`
`media object such as a digital image from a user’s computing device onto a web
`
`page. (Id. at 3:15-17.) First, one or more media objects (e.g., digital images) are se-
`
`lected for submission and optionally tagged with identifying information by the us-
`
`er. (Id.) The media object identifier then “pre-processes” the images using “client-
`
`side intelligence.” (Id at 4:46-52.) The ’482 patent identifies many examples of
`
`pre-processing, including resizing the image (by physical dimensions, pixel count,
`
`file size), compressing an image, changing the file format of an image (i.e., con-
`
`version to JPEG), changing the quality setting of the image, cropping the image,
`
`adding text or annotations to an image, encoding the image, or adjusting image
`
`values such as contrast or saturation. (Id. at 4:56-67.) The ’482 patent also claims
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`that the pre-processing parameters can be sent to the client device from a remote
`
`device such as a server. (e.g., id. at claim 1.)
`
`Once the digital content (i.e., the digital images) has been pre-processed ac-
`
`cording to the parameters received from the remote device, the local device can
`
`transmit the images, along with identifying information, to the server, which pub-
`
`lishes them to the Internet. (Id. at Abstract.)
`
`B. Related Reexamination
`The ’482 patent is subject to a pending ex parte reexamination by the
`
`USPTO (Control No. 90/012,987), in which all considered claims currently stand
`
`rejected. Patent Owner has filed an Appeal Brief, to which the Examiner filed an
`
`answer on January 20, 2015. In the re-examination, the Office has found that
`
`claims 38, 40, 44-46 and 49 are unpatentable over multiple grounds. First, the
`
`claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Creamer
`
`(U.S. Patent 6,930,709). Second, the claims have also been found to be anticipated
`
`by Mattes (U.S. Patent 6,038,295).
`
`State of the prior art
`
`C.
`Long before the filing of the priority application that led to the ’482 patent,
`
`people used graphical user interfaces and web-browser applications for file transfer
`
`and sharing between devices, or for publishing on the Internet. (Lippman Dec., ¶
`
`40.) Indeed, the ’482 patent admits that such systems were known in the art. For
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`example, the ’482 patent describes a system known as “ActiveUpload” that, ac-
`
`cording to the ’482 patent, “allows users to, without leaving a web page, transfer
`
`files to a server (Internet or intranet) by selecting the files on the user’s desktop
`
`that the user wants to transfer, then dragging them onto the web page.” (’482 pa-
`
`tent, 1:53-56.)
`
`In addition, processing media data on a client device before uploading it was
`
`well known before the ’482 patent’s alleged priority date. The study of “distributed
`
`computing” became its own branch of computer science in the late 1970s and early
`
`1980s. By 1999, the benefits of assigning processing tasks to client devices were
`
`well understood. Similarly, transmitting parameters from one device to a second
`
`device in order to enable the second device to process files (e.g., media files) was a
`
`widely known and commonly used technique. (Lippman Dec., ¶ 40.)
`
`Other features claimed in the ’482 patent—such as “transmitting identifying
`
`information associated with a media file” and “retrieving/transmitting user-
`
`identifying information/authorization and access” (including caption and location
`
`information), as well as the combination of such features—were also well known
`
`in the art long before the alleged date of invention. Indeed, the prior art is replete
`
`with examples of them. (Id. at ¶ 40.)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) is presumed to be aware of all
`
`pertinent art, uses conventional wisdom in the art, and is a person of ordinary crea-
`
`tivity. With respect to the ’482 patent, a POSA would typically have at least (a) a
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in computer science (or similar field, e.g., electrical
`
`engineering), or (b) at least or three to five years’ industry experience in the gen-
`
`eral field of software engineering and web design. (Lippman Dec., ¶ 55.)
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION2
` The ’482 patent claim terms must be given their broadest reasonable inter-
`
`pretation, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and consistent with the
`
`disclosure. Although a district court’s construction of similar terms in the ’482 pa-
`
`tent may be informative (Ex. 1007), because the Board applies the broadest rea-
`
`sonable construction standard, the Board’s construction may not be the same as
`
`that adopted by that district court, which applies a different standard. See Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc., IPR2013-00569, Paper
`
`9 at 2 (P.T.A.B. March 6, 2014). The following terms and phrases from the claims
`
`2 Petitioner is currently litigating claim construction in concurrent district
`
`court litigation and reserves the right to assert and, in fact, has asserted different
`
`claim constructions in that litigation in light of the different standard that applies in
`
`litigation.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`of the ’482 patent might require construction based on arguments in the related lit-
`
`igations and reexaminations, and are construed below in accordance with these
`
`principles for the purpose of this inter partes review proceeding. The plain and or-
`
`dinary meaning should be applied to any claim terms that are not addressed below.
`
` “Pre-processing” should be construed as “modifying before further pro-
`
`cessing.” 3 (Lippman Dec., ¶ 60-71.)
`
`
`3 In the pending ex parte reexamination, Patent Owner contends that the
`
`term “pre-processing” must be limited solely to compressing the image for publica-
`
`tion and cannot be directed to unrelated objectives such as storage or archiving.
`This argument contradicts the intrinsic record and was rejected by the Examiner.
`
`Patent Owner has also argued that “receiving an identification” must be lim-
`
`ited to receiving a manual selection by a “user” of a “subset” of stored images via a
`
`“screen.” This argument also contradicts the intrinsic record and the BRI stand-
`
`ard. Other claims of the ’482 patent expressly specify a manual input by a user.
`
`(See, e.g., claim 5 (disclosing that “receiving an identification comprises receiving
`
`a click command at said client device”).) Furthermore, neither the claims of the
`
`’482 patent nor the specification specifies that the identification must be a “subset”
`
`of stored images and does not contain any language that would exclude the identi-
`
`fication of any or all stored images.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART FORMING THE BASIS OF THIS PE-
`TITION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,930,709 to Creamer (Ex. 1003, “Creamer”) was filed De-
`
`cember 3, 1998, and issued August 16, 2005. The Creamer patent claims priority to
`
`U.S. Provisional Application Nos. 60/085,585, filed on May 15, 1998 (“Creamer
`
`’98,” Ex. 1005) and 60/067,310, filed on December 4, 1997 (“Creamer ’97,” Ex.
`
`1004). Therefore, Creamer is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Petitioner has provided both the Creamer ’97 and Creamer ’98 provisionals
`
`and has provided parallel/dual citations to Creamer and Creamer ’97 or ’98 for
`
`each ’482 patent claim feature, in order to show the support for each claim feature
`
`in Creamer and perfect the § 102(e) date of Creamer with respect to the effective
`
`date of the ’482 patent. See In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010);
`
`Ex parte Yamaguchi, 88 USPQ 2d 1606 (B.P.A.I. 2008) (precedential); see also
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2014-00547, Paper
`
`17 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2014).
`
`Like the ’482 patent, Creamer relates to a device (an Internet camera 1) that
`
`(1) receives firmware and parameters over the Internet, the firmware and parame-
`
`
`In any event, as set forth herein and in the accompanying declaration of Dr.
`
`Lippman, even if Patent Owner’s more limiting constructions were adopted, the
`challenged claims would still be invalid.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`Petitionn for Inter PPartes Revview of Pattent No. 7,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`765,482
`
`
`
`ters inclluding imaage processsing parammeters suchh as compreession paraameters, (22)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pre-proccesses a diigital image, for exammple, to coompress a ddigital ima
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ge with thee
`
`
`
`digital immage over thhe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`compression parammeters, andd (3) transmmits the coompressed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Internett to a web sserver for ppublicationn. An annootated versiion of FIGG. 4A of thee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Creameer patent is
`
`
`
`reproduuced here fofor
`
`
`
`
`
`referencce.
`
`
`
`LLike the
`
`
`
`’482 paatent,
`
`
`
`Creameer disclosess receivingg parameterrs from a rremote devvice to proccess imagees.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Creameer disclosess that a “fuull set of opperational pparameterss” can be ddownloade
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`d
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`from ann ISP serveer 304.
`
`
`
`
`
`CCreamer alsso disclosees using pree-processinng parameeters receivved from a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`re-
`
`
`
`mote deevice. The image paraameters, inncluding thhe compresssion parammeters, aree re-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the micrrocontrolleer 200 receeives and wwrites fromm the remotte source .
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30-35 (“Inn step S1200,
`
`
`
`
`
`. . a new sset
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ceived ffrom the Innternet or ffrom a setuup PC. (Creeamer, 27:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of parammeters to bbe written tto the struccture of FIGG. 5.”); seee also Creaamer ’97,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`39:3-5.)) In fact, alll the firmwware for thhe microconntroller 2000 is receivved in the ssame
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`way, so all parameeters relatiing to processing the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`image are received ffrom anothher
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`device. (Creamer, 27:35-43 (“may write or overwrite the firmware in the NVRAM
`
`242”); Creamer ’97, 39:5-9.)
`
`Finally, Creamer discloses transmitting the pre-processed digital image
`
`along with identifying information such as an associated user name/login infor-
`
`mation to a server or directly to remote computers via the World Wide Web.
`
`(Creamer, 11:31-36; Creamer ’97, 17:9-11.)
`
`VI.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 25, and 51 of the
`
`’482 patent based on a single ground (Ground 1) as being obvious over Creamer.
`
`With respect to Ground 1, although Petitioner thinks Creamer teaches each and
`
`every feature of the challenged claims in the first ground, some features may be
`
`seen as requiring corroboration from the expert. Accordingly, the petition presents
`
`the grounds under obviousness instead of anticipation. A detailed statement of the
`
`reasons for the relief requested is set forth in Section VI below.
`
`Obviousness is a question of law that is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).4
`
`As the Supreme Court has explained, “[t]he combination of familiar ele-
`
`ments according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
`
`than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. The Supreme Court further
`
`explained in KSR that, “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
`
`incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same
`
`field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
`
`
`4 Petitioner reserves the right to provide a full rebuttal to any secondary con-
`
`sideration evidence that Patent Owner provides during these proceedings. Petition-
`
`er cannot address such evidence now because Patent Owner has not yet provided
`
`any, and the evidence of alleged secondary considerations that Patent Owner used
`
`in the prior litigation is mostly sealed. Pe