`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`§ Attorney Docket No.:
`United States Patent No.: 8,532,641
`§
`110797-0004-658
`Inventors: Russell W. White,
`§ Customer No. 28120
`Kevin R. Imes
`Formerly Application No.: 13/673,391 § Petitioners:
`Issue Date: Sept. 10, 2013
`§
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.;
`Filing Date: Nov. 9, 2012
`§
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`Priority Date: March 28, 2000
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`Former Group Art Unit: 2646
`Former Examiner: Erika Washington
`
`
`
`
`For: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING MEDIA
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,532,641
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V. 
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS ............................................................................................................... vi
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................... 5 
`III.  PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING ...................................................................... 7 
`IV. 
`SUMMARY OF THE ‘641 PATENT ....................................................................... 8 
`A.  Overview of the ‘641 Patent ............................................................................ 8 
`B. 
`‘641 Patent Prosecution History .................................................................... 10 
`‘641 PATENT CLAIMS 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 and 12 ARE NOT ENTITLED
`TO CLAIM PRIORITY TO THE MARCH 28, 2000 FILING DATE
`OF THE ‘812 APPLICATION AND THE SEPTEMBER 23, 2004
`FILING DATE OF THE ‘755 APPLICATION .................................................. 11 
`VI.  THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT
`PETITIONERS WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE ‘641 PATENT .................................................................. 28 
`A. 
`Claim Construction Under § 42.104(b)(3) ................................................... 29 
`B. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art & State of the Art ................................. 30 
`C. 
`Ground 1: Obvious over Hu in view of Ahn & the knowledge of
`a POSITA (Claims 1-3, 5, 9); Ground 2: Obvious over Hu in view
`of Ahn & Nokia (Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10); Ground 3: Obvious over
`Hu in view of Ahn, Nokia & the knowledge of a POSITA (Claims
`1-3, 5, 9, 10); Ground 4: Obvious over Hu in view of Ahn,
`Galensky & the knowledge of a POSITA (Claims 7, 12); Ground
`5: Obvious over Hu in view of Ahn, Galensky & Nokia (Claims 6,
`7, 12); Ground 6: Obvious over Hu in view of Ahn, Galensky,
`Nokia & the knowledge of a POSITA (Claims 6, 7, 12); Ground 7:
`Obvious over Hu in view of Ahn & Galensky (Claim 12) ........................ 30 
`1. 
`Overview of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0262103 (“Hu”) .......... 33 
`2. 
`Overview of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0214525 (“Ahn”) ......... 34 
`3. 
`Overview of Nokia 9000/9000i Owner’s Manual (“Nokia”) ....... 35 
`4. 
`Overview of U.S. Pat. No. 6,845,398 (“Galensky”)........................ 35 
`5. 
`Motivation to Combine Hu with Ahn, Nokia, & Galensky .......... 36 
`6. 
`Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 & 12 Are Obvious Over Grounds 1-7 ........ 42 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`VII.  CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 59 
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`
`Dystar Textilfarben GMBH v. C.H. Patrick Co.,
`464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... 36, 38, 42
`
`In re Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC,
`550 Fed. Appx. 884 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2014) .................................................................. 16
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................ 29
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 12
`
`Kaiser Aluminum v. Constellium Rolled Prods. Ravenswood, LLC,
`Case IPR2014-01002, Paper 11 (Dec. 29, 2014) .......................................................... 32
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................................... passim
`
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
`Case CBM2012-00003, Paper 15 (Feb. 12, 2013) ......................................................... 12
`
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
`Case CBM2013-00009, Paper 10 (Mar. 28, 2013) ........................................................ 32
`
`Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.
`Case IPR2014-01235, Paper 12 (Dec. 22, 2014) .......................................................... 32
`
`Studiengesellschaft Kohle, M.B.H. v. Shell Oil Co.,
`112 F.3d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................................ 27
`
`Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp.,
`Case IPR2014-00508, Paper 28 (Feb. 12, 2015) .......................................................... 33
`
`Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp.,
`Case IPR2014-00508, Paper 31 (Feb. 12, 2015) ..................................................... 7, 33
`
`Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp.,
`Case IPR2014-00508, Paper 32 (Feb. 12, 2015) .......................................................... 33
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ........................................................................................ 12
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ........................................................................................ 12
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 ............................................................................................................................. passim
`
`§ 103 ............................................................................................................................. passim
`
`§ 112 ..................................................................................................................................... 12
`
`§§ 311-319 ............................................................................................................................. 1
`
`§ 314 ..................................................................................................................................... 28
`
`§ 315 ................................................................................................................................ 7, 33
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1.33 .................................................................................................................................... 60
`
`§ 42 ......................................................................................................................................... 1
`
`§ 42.8 .................................................................................................................................. 5-6
`
`§ 42.15 ................................................................................................................................. 60
`
`§ 42.22 ................................................................................................................................... 8
`
`§ 42.100 ........................................................................................................................ 29, 60
`
`§ 42.104 ...................................................................................................................... 7, 8, 29
`
`§ 42.105 ............................................................................................................................... 60
`
`§ 42.122 ................................................................................................................................. 7
`
`§ 325 ....................................................................................................................................... 3
`
`iv
`
`

`

`MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
`§ 2111 .................................................................................................................................. 29
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`v
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`Ex. 1301
`Ex. 1302
`Ex. 1303
`Ex. 1304
`Ex. 1305
`Ex. 1306
`Ex. 1307
`Ex. 1308
`Ex. 1308A
`
`Ex. 1308B
`
`Ex. 1309
`Ex. 1310
`Ex. 1310A
`
`Ex. 1311
`Ex. 1312
`
`Ex. 1313
`
`Ex. 1314
`
`Ex. 1315
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 (“the ‘641 patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 File History
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0262103 (“Hu”)
`U.S. Patent App. No. 11/438,016 File History filed by Hu et al.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0214525 (“Ahn”)
`International Publication No. WO 02/096137 filed by Ahn et al.
`Declaration of Harri Valio
`Declaration of Jari Toivanen
`Exhibit A to the Declaration of Jari Toivanen - User’s Manual for
`the Nokia 9000 Communicator, dated 1995, published by Nokia
`Mobile Phones.
`Exhibit B to the Declaration of Jari Toivanen - Owner’s Manual
`for the Nokia 9000i Communicator (“Nokia”),
`dated 1995-1997, published by Nokia Mobile Phones Ltd.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,845,398 (“Galensky”)
`Declaration of Paul E. Berg
`Exhibit A to the Declaration of Paul E. Berg - Universal Serial
`Bus Specification, Revision 1.1, September 23, 1998, Compaq
`Computer Corporation, Intel Corporation, Microsoft
`Corporation, and NEC Corporation.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,953,390 File History
`May 20, 2014 Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review in
`IPR2014-00209 (Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,953,390)
`May 20, 2014 Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review in
`IPR2014-00212 (Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,953,390)
`June 12, 2014 Action Closing Prosecution in Reexamination
`Control Nos. 95/001,262 and 90/011,254 (Inter Partes and Ex
`Parte Reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 7,187,947)
`June 30, 2014 Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision, Appeal
`No. 2014-002024 and August 18, 2011 Action Closing
`Prosecution in Reexamination Control No. 95/001,281 (Inter
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`
`Ex. 1316
`
`Ex. 1317
`
`Ex. 1318
`Ex. 1319
`Ex. 1320
`Ex. 1321
`
`Ex. 1322
`
`Ex. 1323
`
`Ex. 1324
`
`Ex. 1325
`
`Ex. 1326
`Ex. 1327
`Ex. 1328
`
`Ex. 1329
`Ex. 1330
`Ex. 1331
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`Description
`Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,634,228)
`Specification of the Bluetooth System v1.0 B, Vols. 1 & 2, 1999,
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, International Business
`Machines Corporation, Intel Corporation, Nokia Corporation,
`Toshiba Corporation.
`February 12, 2013 Decision on Institution of Covered Business
`Method Review in CBM2012-00003
`U.S. Patent No. 7,187,947 File History
`U.S. Patent No. 7,324,833 File History
`U.S. Patent No. 7,778,595 File History
`Control No. 95/001,263 Reexamination History from December
`6, 2011 until April 11, 2014 (Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,486,926)
`IBM Dictionary of Computing, Edited by George McDaniel,
`McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994
`January 30, 2015 Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review in
`IPR2014-01184 (Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641)
`January 30, 2015 Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review in
`IPR2014-01181 (Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641)
`January 30, 2015 Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review in
`IPR2014-01182 (Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641)
`Nokia CARK60 Installation Guide, dated August 1996
`U.S. Patent No. 6,633,932 (“Bork”)
`Nokia 9000i and 9000il Product Information, available at
`http://tech-insider.org/mobile/research/1997/0910-b.html,
`dated 1998
`U.S. Patent No. 6,211,649 (“Matsuda”)
`Motomanual RAZR V3i GSM, Motorola, Inc., 2006
`Archived web page of
`http://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_razr_v3i-1352.php
`accessed on February 24, 2015 through the December 20, 2005
`archive of http://web.archive.org, specifically,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20051220091300/http://www.gsm
`arena.com/motorola_razr_v3i-1352.php
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1332
`Ex. 1333
`Ex. 1334
`
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,123,936 (“Rydbeck”)
`Declaration of Dr. Schuyler Quackenbush
`Declaration of Hayan Yoon in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 421, Petitioners respectfully
`
`request inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 and 12 (“Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Pat. No. 8,532,641 (“the ‘641 patent”) currently assigned to Affinity
`
`Labs of Texas, LLC (“Affinity”).
`
`The ‘641 patent is one of 14 patents that cite back to U.S. Pat. App. No.
`
`09/537,812 (“the ‘812 application”) filed on March 28, 2000 and issued as U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 7,187,947. These patents all share a common specification and generally relate to
`
`the delivery of Internet media content, such as “songs, on-line radio stations, on-line
`
`broadcasts, [or] streaming audio,” to a portable device. The portable device may be
`
`used to play the media content and may also be connected with another electronic
`
`device, such as a portable radio or vehicle audio system, so that the audio information
`
`may be communicated to the other electronic device.
`
`Petitioners previously filed a petition (IPR2014-01184) seeking inter partes
`
`review and judgment against claims 1-3 and 5-14 of the ‘641 patent based on
`
`combinations of Ohmura, Ahn, Nokia and/or Galensky. On January 30, 2015, the
`
`Board granted the petition with respect to claims 8, 11, 13 and 14, finding that there
`
`was a reasonable likelihood that claims 8 and 11 are obvious over Ohmura in view of
`
`
`1 All sections cited in this Petition are from either 35 U.S.C. or 37 C.F.R. unless stated
`
`otherwise. All emphasis is added by Petitioners unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`Ahn, and claims 13 and 14 are obvious over Ohmura in view of Ahn and Nokia. Ex.
`
`1323 at 15. The Board further concluded that at this stage, Patent Owner failed to
`
`demonstrate that claims 8, 11, 13 and 14 are entitled to a priority date earlier than the
`
`November 9, 2012 filing date of App. No. 13/673,391 (the application leading to the
`
`‘641 patent). Id. at 8. The Board did not institute review as to ‘641 patent claims 1-3,
`
`5-7, 9-10 and 12, however, concluding that the petition did not sufficiently identify
`
`support for obviousness in the combinations of Ohmura, Ahn, Nokia and/or
`
`Galensky. Id. at 13. Specifically, the Board stated that “[g]iven that the Ohmura system
`
`already includes a separate cellular telephone … Petitioner has not explained
`
`sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it ‘beneficial’ or
`
`‘advantageous’ to modify Ohmura’s portable audio apparatus to include Internet
`
`connectivity over a cellular connection.” Id.
`
`While respectfully disagreeing with the Board’s decision not to institute a
`
`review of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 and 12 in IPR2014-01184, Petitioners, rather than
`
`requesting reconsideration, now file this separate Petition requesting IPR of claims 1-
`
`3, 5-7, 9-10 and 12 as obvious based on an alternative prior art reference (“Hu”) in
`
`view of Ahn, Nokia and/or Galensky. These grounds – presenting new art (Hu) not
`
`known to Petitioners before the filing of their original petition and located, instead,
`
`after the Board’s institution decision in IPR2014-01184 – raise new questions and
`
`address the concerns perceived by the Board in the earlier petition, with the benefit of
`
`the fuller explanation and consideration that a separate petition affords. Petitioners
`
`2
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`note that the Director, pursuant to Rule 325(c), may determine at the proper time that
`
`merger of the foregoing proceedings (in particular, IPR2014-01184) with this Petition
`
`may be appropriate, and as noted below, Petitioners are concurrently filing a motion
`
`for joinder of these proceedings.
`
`The Hu reference relied on in this Petition specifically addresses the Board’s
`
`concerns with Ohmura that were expressed in IPR2014-01184. Like Ohmura, Hu
`
`discloses a system for playing music stored in a portable device through a user
`
`interface and an audio system within a vehicle. In contrast to Ohmura, however, the
`
`portable device in Hu is a cell phone, which includes the ability to download music
`
`and receive and send emails over the Internet and communicate with a voice mail
`
`server. Accordingly, Hu addresses the Board’s concern that Petitioners had failed to
`
`demonstrate in IPR2014-01184 why it would have been beneficial or advantageous to
`
`modify Ohmura’s portable audio apparatus to include Internet connectivity over a
`
`cellular connection: no such modification is necessary with Hu because the portable
`
`device in Hu is already a cell phone with the capabilities claimed in the ‘641 patent.
`
`Consistent with the Board’s findings in IPR2014-01184, the present Petition
`
`demonstrates that the Challenged Claims are, in fact, not entitled to the claimed
`
`March 28, 2000 priority date of the ‘812 application in addition to the claimed
`
`September 23, 2004 priority date of U.S. Pat. App. No. 10/947,755 (“the ‘755
`
`application”) (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,324,833), and are unpatentable in view of
`
`references published after March 28, 2000. Specifically, Petitioners submit that
`
`3
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`Affinity is not entitled to claim a priority date earlier than at least January 16, 2008
`
`because the alleged “inventions” of the ‘641 patent claims were not disclosed in at
`
`least two of the applications preceding the application filed on that date in the claimed
`
`priority chain—the ‘812 and ‘755 applications. Indeed, the Board previously
`
`determined that the claims of the related ‘228 patent, which contain similar limitations,
`
`are likewise not entitled to the March 28, 2000 priority date because of a lack of
`
`disclosure in the ‘812 application, to which it also claimed priority. Ex. 1315.
`
`As set forth herein, the supposed “invention” in each of the Challenged Claims
`
`was well-known and obvious prior to January 16, 2008. The Hu and Ahn references
`
`relied on in this Petition disclose all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 8,
`
`including the ability for a wireless phone to communicate information to a second
`
`device that is used to generate a selectable graphical menu item associated with media
`
`content on the phone and stream music to the second device using an asynchronous
`
`wireless channel of a localized communications signaling network. The following
`
`conventional features of a wireless telephone were, among others, also quite well-
`
`known in the art prior to January 16, 2008: a display, a housing, an enclosure, a
`
`rechargeable battery, a memory, a physical interface for communicating data and
`
`receiving a recharging power, and the ability to alter an output of an audio signal
`
`when recognizing receipt of a phone call. The references cited herein – including Hu,
`
`Ahn, and Nokia – expressly confirm that these conventional features of a wireless
`
`phone were well-known. In fact, these features were all found to be inherent in a
`
`4
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`wireless phone during prosecution of the ‘641 patent.
`
`The dependent claims of the ‘641 patent add limitations that were similarly
`
`well-known in the art, such as email, voice-mail, an Internet browser, a hands-free
`
`mode, Bluetooth compatibility, wireless receipt of a software application upgrade, and
`
`the ability to receive data at two communication rates based at least partially upon an
`
`amount of data located in buffer memory. See, e.g., Ex. 1302 at 413-18; Ex. 1311 at
`
`500; Ex. 1312; Ex. 1313; Ex. 1314; Ex. 1316. These limitations are likewise expressly
`
`disclosed in the Hu, Ahn, Nokia, and Galensky references cited herein.
`
`Each and every element of the Challenged Claims has been disclosed in the
`
`prior art and the Challenged Claims are nothing more than a routine and predictable
`
`combination of these well-known elements. Furthermore, the Challenged Claims are
`
`not entitled to, inter alia, claim priority to the March 28, 2000 filing date of the ‘812
`
`application or the September 23, 2004 filing date of the ‘755 application because there
`
`is no disclosure of the alleged “invention” in either of these applications. Thus,
`
`Petitioners respectfully request that the Board find that each of the Challenged Claims
`
`is not entitled to claim a priority date earlier than January 16, 2008 and that each of
`
`the Challenged Claims is invalid under § 103.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`Notices Under § 42.8(b)(1), (b)(3), & (b)(4): The Petitioners and real
`
`parties-in-interest are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc. (collectively “Samsung” or “Petitioners”). Lead counsel, backup counsel,
`
`5
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`and service information for Petitioners are designated in the signature block below.
`
`Related Matters Under § 42.8(b)(2) and Joinder Motion: Affinity is
`
`asserting ‘641 patent claims 1-3 and 5-14 against Petitioners in Affinity v. Samsung, 3:14-
`
`cv-3030 (NDCA) and in Affinity v. Blackberry, 5:14-cv-3031 (NDCA). There are three
`
`inter partes review proceedings involving the ‘641 patent that were previously filed by
`
`Petitioners. In IPR2014-01181, the Board instituted review of claims 8 and 11-14
`
`based on the primary reference “Ito.” Ex. 1324. In IPR2014-01182, the Board
`
`instituted review of claims 1-3 and 5-14 based on the primary reference “Abecassis.”
`
`Ex. 1325. And in IPR2014-01184, the Board instituted review of claims 8, 11, 13, and
`
`14 based on the primary reference “Ohmura.” Ex. 1323. Petitioners have also
`
`concurrently filed an additional IPR petition challenging claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-10 of
`
`the ‘641 patent based on the Ito reference. The following additional matters concern
`
`one or more of the ‘641 patent and/or patents that are related to the ‘641 patent:
`
`IPR2014-00209; IPR2014-00212; IPR2014-00407; IPR2014-00408; 90/011,254;
`
`95/001,262; 90/010,333; 95/001,223; 95/001,264; 90/011,982; 95/001,281;
`
`95/001,263; 95/001,266; 95/001,782; Affinity v. Apple, 9:09-cv-47 (EDTX), 1:11-cv-
`
`349 (EDTX), & 4:09-cv-4436 (NDCA); Affinity v. Dice Elecs., 9:08-cv-163 (EDTX);
`
`Affinity v. BMW, 9:08-cv-164 (EDTX); Affinity v. Alpine, 9:08-cv-171 (EDTX); Affinity v.
`
`Nike, 2:10-cv-54 (EDTX) & 4:10-cv-5543 (NDCA); Affinity v. Volkswagen, 1:11-cv-36
`
`(EDTX); Affinity v. Clear Channel Broadcasting, 1:12-cv-205 (WDTX); Affinity v. Samsung,
`
`4:13-mc-80209, 4:14-cv-2717, 4:14-cv-02966 (NDCA); Affinity v. Ford, 1:12-cv-580
`
`6
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`(EDTX) & 6:13-cv-363 (WDTX); Affinity v. General Motors, 1:12-cv-582 (EDTX), 6:13-
`
`cv-370 (WDTX); Affinity v. Toyota, 6:13-cv-365 (WDTX); Affinity v. Volvo, 6:13-cv-366
`
`(WDTX); Affinity v. Honda, 6:13-cv-367 (WDTX); Affinity v. Jaguar, 6:13-cv-368
`
`(WDTX); Affinity v. Nissan, 6:13-cv-369 (WDTX); Affinity v. Bosch, 6:14-cv-396
`
`(WDTX); Affinity v. Robert Bosch, 1:14-cv-499 (EDTX); Affinity v. Nissan, 1:14-cv-508
`
`(EDTX); Affinity v. MLB Advanced Media, 6:15-cv-33 (WDTX); Affinity v. Directv, 6:15-
`
`cv-30 (WDTX); Affinity v. NBA Media Ventures, 6:15-cv-31 (WDTX); Affinity v.
`
`Amazon.com, 6:15-cv-29 (WDTX); Affinity v. NHL Enterprises, 7:15-cv-32 (WDTX).
`
`By separate motion filed herewith, Petitioners request that this proceeding be
`
`joined with Case No. IPR2014-01184.
`
`III. PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING
`Grounds for Standing Under § 42.104(a): Petitioners certify that the ‘641 patent is
`
`eligible for IPR and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR
`
`of the ‘641 patent. Pursuant to § 42.122(b), although Petitioners were served with a
`
`complaint asserting infringement of the ‘641 patent more than one year ago, the
`
`normal statutory one-year bar under § 315(b) does not apply here because (1) the
`
`Board has already instituted IPR proceedings on this patent on timely first petitions
`
`filed by Petitioners (IPR2014-01181, IPR2014-01182, and IPR2014-01184), and (2)
`
`Petitioners accompany this second petition with a motion for joinder under § 315(c).
`
`See IPR2014-00508, Pap. No. 31 at 2 (“The one-year time bar, however, does not
`
`apply to a request for joinder.”) The Petitioners and real parties-in-interest have not
`
`7
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`initiated a civil action challenging validity of the ‘641 patent.
`
`Claims & Statutory Grounds Under § 42.22 & §§ 42.104(b): Petitioners request
`
`IPR of ‘641 claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 and 12 and assert that these claims are unpatentable
`
`based on one or more grounds under § 103: Ground 1: Obvious over Hu in view of
`
`Ahn & the knowledge of a POSITA (Claims 1-3, 5, 9); Ground 2: Obvious over Hu
`
`in view of Ahn & Nokia (Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10); Ground 3: Obvious over Hu in view of
`
`Ahn, Nokia & the knowledge of a POSITA (Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10); Ground 4: Obvious
`
`over Hu in view of Ahn, Galensky & the knowledge of a POSITA (Claims 7, 12);
`
`Ground 5: Obvious over Hu in view of Ahn, Galensky & Nokia (Claims 6, 7, 12);
`
`Ground 6: Obvious over Hu in view of Ahn, Galensky, Nokia & the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA (Claims 6, 7, 12); Ground 7: Obvious over Hu in view of Ahn & Galensky
`
`(Claim 12). Section VI.C provides a claim chart specifying how the cited art renders
`
`obvious each of the Challenged Claims, as confirmed by the knowledge and
`
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), as of January 16,
`
`2008, as evidenced in the Declaration of Dr. Schuyler Quackenbush (Ex. 1333).
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ‘641 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ‘641 Patent
`The ‘641 specification generally describes a “System and Method for Managing
`
`Media” as applied to various electronic devices such as a PC, portable device, or
`
`vehicle audio system. The Challenged Claims are directed to a system for delivering
`
`media content to a wireless telephone over a wireless network, communicating
`
`8
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`information about media content from the telephone to a recipient device to generate
`
`a graphical menu comprising selectable menu items on the display of the recipient
`
`device, and streaming an audio signal from the telephone to the recipient device using
`
`an asynchronous wireless channel of a local network in response to a selection of a
`
`menu item on the recipient device. The Challenged Claims further claim a Bluetooth
`
`communication module in the telephone and that media content is delivered to a
`
`wireless telephone at a hybrid of communication rates.
`
`The elements of the Challenged Claims are an amalgam of features described in
`
`various embodiments in the ‘641 patent. For example, in one portion of the
`
`specification, the ‘641 patent discloses that “Electronic devices are described in more
`
`detail below and may include a network radio, a modular device, an audio system, a
`
`personal digital assistant (PDA), a cellular phone.” Ex. 1301 at 5:36-39. Many of the
`
`other features of claim 1, however, such as a rechargeable battery, display, housing,
`
`and physical interface, are never specifically described in the specification with respect
`
`to a cellular phone. Similarly, although the ‘641 patent describes the ability to
`
`communicate audio information from a portable device to a second device over a
`
`localized wireless connection (id. at 9:31-43), such disclosure is not connected to the
`
`‘641 patent’s only description of an asynchronous wireless channel (see id. at 6:31-47).
`
`As set forth in this Petition, all of the elements of the Challenged Claims were
`
`well-known in the art long before January 16, 2008. Indeed, the specification itself
`
`makes clear that the applicants did not purport to invent, inter alia, the following claim
`
`9
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`elements: cellular telephone (Ex. 1301 at 5:36-41); display (11:1-3, 12:35-40); housing
`
`and enclosure. (Fig. 9); wireless communication module (2:33-43, 5:42-6:6, 9:57-67);
`
`rechargeable power
`
`supply
`
`(13:26-32); non-circular physical
`
`interface
`
`for
`
`communicating data and recharging power (18:33-55, Fig. 9); memory (8:48-52, 8:66-
`
`9:3); streaming media (8:31-37); asynchronous channel (6:34-39); Bluetooth (2:41-43,
`
`9:47-49); email client (10:40-45); voicemail client (id.); Internet browser (9:17-22,
`
`10:66-11:14); hands-free mode (10:45-46); buffer memory (8:48-52); audio player
`
`(9:13-19, 11:35-39, 16:29-34). In the same way that these elements have been
`
`combined in the ‘641 patent claims, it would have been obvious and straightforward
`
`to a POSITA to have combined them in the prior art.
`
`‘641 Patent Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The application leading to the ‘641 patent was filed on November 9, 2012 as a
`
`continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 8,521,140 (filed 5/27/11), which is a continuation of
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,953,390 (“the ‘390 patent”) (filed 6/30/09), which is a continuation of
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,778,595 (“the ‘595 patent”) (filed 1/16/08), which is a continuation of
`
`the ‘833 patent (filed 9/23/04), which is a continuation of the ‘947 patent (filed
`
`3/28/00). On March 13, 2013, the Examiner issued an Office Action, rejecting
`
`prosecution claims 8-11 and 13-20 under § 102, prosecution claims 1-7 and 12 under
`
`§ 103 and prosecution claims 1-20 for double patenting. Ex. 1302 at 411-421. The
`
`Examiner also noted that many of the claim elements were inherent in the art (e.g., a
`
`display, housing, enclosure, wireless communication module, rechargeable power
`
`10
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`supply, physical interface, memory, receiving a wireless upgrade for a software
`
`application, email, voice-mail, Internet browser). Id. at 413-18. On May 1, 2013,
`
`Applicants amended the specification and claims: prosecution claim 1 (issued as claim
`
`1) was amended to add “to communicate a collection of information about media
`
`content available from the wireless telephone device to a recipient device such that
`
`the recipient device can use the collection of information to generate a graphical
`
`menu comprising a selectable menu item associated with the available media content”;
`
`and prosecution claim 8 (issued as claim 8) was amended to add “in response to a
`
`selection of a selectable menu item presented on a recipient device display.” Id. at 245-
`
`258. The Examiner then issued a Notice of Allowance on June 3, 2013, and the ‘641
`
`patent issued on September 10, 2013.
`
`V.
`
`‘641 PATENT CLAIMS 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 AND 12 ARE NOT ENTITLED
`TO CLAIM PRIORITY TO THE MARCH 28, 2000 FILING DATE OF
`THE ‘812 APPLICATION AND THE SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 FILING
`DATE OF THE ‘755 APPLICATION
`
`The application leading to the ‘641 patent was filed as a continuation of the
`
`‘140 patent, which is a continuation of the ‘390 patent, which is a continuation of the
`
`‘595 patent, which is a continuation of the ‘833 patent, which is a continuation of the
`
`‘947 patent. The ‘641 patent claims priority to this chain of patent applications, the
`
`earliest of which is U.S. Pat. App. No. 09/537,812 (“the ‘812 application”), (filed on
`
`March 28, 2000 and issued on March 6, 2007 as the ‘947 patent), followed by U.S. Pat.
`
`App. No. 10/947,755 (“the ‘755 application”) (filed on September 23, 2004 and issued
`
`11
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`on January 29, 2008 as the ‘833 patent).
`
`To properly claim the benefit of the March 28, 2000 priority date, or any other
`
`date in the chain of priority, however, the claims at issue must be directed to subject
`
`matter disclosed in the prior appl