Tria1s@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 20
`Entered: May 20, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND
`
`OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CQ., LTD; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA,‘ INC. ; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`AMERICA, LLC; LG ELECTRONICS, INC.; LG ELECTRONICS
`U.S.A., INC.; LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM USA, INC.;
`HTC CORP., and HTC AMERICA, INC.
`'
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014—00209
`
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`ION B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`_
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`’
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 1
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 1
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 20
`Entered: May 20, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND
`
`OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CQ., LTD; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA,‘ INC. ; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`AMERICA, LLC; LG ELECTRONICS, INC.; LG ELECTRONICS
`U.S.A., INC.; LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM USA, INC.;
`HTC CORP., and HTC AMERICA, INC.
`'
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014—00209
`
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`ION B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`_
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`’
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 1
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`.
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`On December 2, 2013, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC,
`
`LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics
`
`Mobilecomm USA, Inc., HTC Corp., and HTC America, Inc. (“Petitioners”)
`
`' filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 16, 19, and 20 of U.S.
`
`Patent 7,953,390 B2 (“the ’39O patent”). Paper 1. On December 12, 2013,
`
`Petitioners filed a corrected Petition. Paper 11 (“Pet.”). The owner of the
`
`’390 patent, Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC (“Patent Owner”), filed a
`
`Preliminary Response to the Petition on March 7, 2014. Paper 19 (“Prelim.
`
`Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides:
`
`THRESHOLD — The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311
`and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`
`determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail
`
`with respect to claims 16, 19, and 20 of the ’390 patent. Accordingly,
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we authorize an inter partes review to be
`
`instituted as to those claims.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`The ’390 patent is being asserted in Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC vf
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 1:12-cv-557 '(E.D. Tex.). Paper 18. The
`
`’390 patent is also the subject of pending inter partes review petition
`
`2
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 2
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`
`« Patent 7,953,390 B2 ‘
`
`IPR2014-00212. Id.; Pet. 8.
`
`B. _Prior Art Reliéd Upon
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners rely on the following prior art references:
`
`
`
`
`
`C. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioners assert the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 9):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-a
`
`
`
`
`
`. .Reféf .
`
`
`
`
`
`W 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. The ’390 Patent
`
`The ’390 patent is directed to a delivery system for digitally stored
`
`content. Ex. 1001, 1:17-19. In particular, the ’390 patent relates to the
`
`wireless delivery of media content, such as songs, video, on-line radio
`stations, on-line broadcasts, and text. Id. at 2:55-59, 3:10-15, 3:37-39,
`
`14:41-44.
`
`Many different wireless devices may be used to select and receive
`
`media content in the system and method of the ’390 patent, including “a
`
`3
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 3
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014—OO209
`
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`network radio, a modular device, an audio system, a personal digital
`
`assistant (PDA), a cellular phone, or other electronic devices operable to
`
`receive information wirelessly.” Id. at 4:29-32. In at least one embodiment,
`
`the wireless device containsa physical interface that allows a different
`
`electronic device simultaneously to communicate with, and to recharge the
`
`battery of, the wireless device using a single cable‘having multiple
`
`conductive elements. See at 17:18-62, 2019-20.
`
`In one embodiment of the ’39O patent, a user selects desired audio
`information from a webpage. Id at 14:34-44. This audio information may
`
`include “a single song, a plurality [of] different songs,” or “an entire album.”
`
`Id. at 14:42-44. After the user finishes selecting the desired songs, the
`
`system creates both a playlist and a listing of “network or URL locations”
`
`where the songs on the playlist may be found. Id. at 14:44-53. The songs on
`
`the playlist then are retrieved from one or more of the listed network
`
`locations and streamed to the user. Id. at 5:58-6:10, 14:50-61, 15:46-51.
`
`The selected songs may be streamed to a user over a high-speed
`
`wireless communications network. Id. at 5:64-6:7. In this
`
`embodiment, selected content is delivered initially to the wireless
`
`device at a high transmission rate. Id. Once a sufficient buffer has
`
`been established in the memory of the wireless device, the rest of the
`
`selected content then is transmitted at a second, slower rate. Id.
`
`E. Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, only claim 16 is independent. Claim 16 and
`
`~ dependent claim 19 are illustrative of the claims at issue and are reproduced
`
`below:
`
`16. A system for content delivery, comprising:
`a portable device having a display, a local rechargeable battery,
`
`4
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 4
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`a wireless communication system, and a processor;
`
`a physical interface of the portable device, the physical
`interface configured to connect to an interface system that
`includes a cable having multiple conductive elements,
`wherein the physical interface is designed such that a
`different electronic device can be communicatively coupled
`with the physical interface of the portable device using the
`interface system in a manner that allows the different
`electronic device to recharge the local rechargeable battery
`using at least one of the multiple conductive elements and to
`communicate with the portable device using at least one other
`of the multiple conductive elements; and
`
`a computer-readable medium having stored instructions that
`when executed are operable to cause the processor: (1) to
`present an icon on the display, the icon associatedwith
`content that is deliverable as streaming media; (2) to
`recognize a selection of the icon; and (3) to switch between a
`set of communication rates at which the portable device
`receives a first portion and a second portion of the content,
`wherein the set of communication rates comprise at least a
`first data rate and a second data rate that is slower than the
`
`first data rate.
`
`19. The system of claim 16, wherein the stored instructions
`are further operable to cause the processor: (1) to obtain a
`listing of network locations at which to access the streaming
`media; and (2) to cause a first of the network locations to be
`accessed to facilitate a streaming delivery of the streaming
`media.
`
`(line breaks added for readability).
`
`A. Claim Construction I
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be
`
`given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`5
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 5
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-002.09
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). In
`
`determining the broadest reasonable construction, a.claim term is presumed
`to carry its ordinary and customary meaning. See in re Translogic Tech.,
`
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This presumption may be
`
`rebutted when a patentee, acting as a lexicographer, sets forth an alternate
`
`definition of a term in the specification with reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994)
`
`Petitioners provide proposed constructions for multiple claim terms.
`
`Pet. 15-18. Patent Owner disputes one of these constructions and submits its
`
`own proposed construction. Prelim. Resp. 6-7. For this decision, we
`
`construe ‘only the one claim term we deem necessary for institution.
`
`A listing ofnetwork locationsat which to access the streaming media
`
`
`
`A list sources, addes 0 links
`
`for streaming media that is available
`corresponding to portions of an
`
`on a network. Pet. 17.
`available media. Prelim. Res . 6-7.
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners assert that the “listing of network locations” may contain
`
`multiple network locations for multiple songs on a network. Pet. 17, 53-54.
`
`Patent Owner argues Petitioners’ proposed construction is too broad.
`
`According to Patent Owner, because the term “the streaming media” refers
`
`to a single file or- song, and because “network locations” refer to a plurality
`
`of network locations, each of the listed network locations must provide ‘a
`
`portion of the same single, broken-up media file. Prelim. Resp. 6-7.
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 6
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`The foundation of Patent Owner's argument is that the term "the
`
`streaming media" in claim 19 refers to a single file or song. The term
`
`"streaming media" is not defined explicitly in the '390 patent. In the context
`
`-of claims 16, 19, and 20, the term is introduced first in independent claim
`
`16, which recites: "(1) to present an icon on the display, the icon associated
`
`with content that is deliverable as streaming media." Use of the term
`
`"deliverable as" indicates that "streaming media" refers to the method of
`
`content delivery, and not to a single file or song, as a~serted by Patent
`
`Owner. This is consistent with the general definition of"streaming," which
`
`is "relating to or being the transfer-of data (as audio or video material) in a
`
`continuous stream especially for immediate processing or playback."
`
`(Streaming Definition, MERRIAM-WEBSTER.com, http://www.merriam(cid:173)
`
`webster.com/dictionary/streaming); see also (Streaming Media Definition,
`
`http://www. techopedia.com/ definition/ 145 86/streaming-media) (noting that
`
`"streaming media" refers to a method of delivering multimedia' elements).
`
`It is, instead, the term "content" in claim 16 that indicates what
`
`information is delivered "as streaming media." In the '3~0 specification, the
`
`term "content," and the related terms "desirable audio information" and
`
`"selected audio information," are not limited to a single file or song. Ex.
`
`1001, 1:17-19, 2:48-65, 6:20-33, 7:21-30, 8:64-9:5, 14:36-58. In addition, to
`
`the extent that "the streaming media" in claim 19 was intended to identify
`
`more than the method of content delivery, use of the word "the" in "the
`
`streaming media" presumptively carries the meaning of "one or more," and
`
`Patent Owner directs us to no portion of the '390 patent specification or
`
`prosecution history expressing a clear intent to limit the scope of "the
`
`streaming media" in claim 19, or "content" in claim 16, to a single file or
`
`7
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`song. See Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc., 423’ F.3d 1343,
`
`1350-1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting that the terms “a,” “an,” and “the” are
`
`presumed to mean “one or more” when used in conjunction with the
`
`antecedent “comprising”); Prelim. Resp. 6-7. Therefore, we are not
`
`persuaded that “the streaming media” in claim 19 is limited to a single file or
`
`song or that each network location must contain a portion of the same,
`
`broken-up media file.
`Petitioners also propose that “network locations” be construed as
`
`“sources, addresses, or links.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:42-51, 10:3-5,
`
`14:48-58). Upon review of Petitioners’ argument and the ’390 specification,
`
`however, we are not persuaded thatthe term “network locations” is defined
`
`expressly as “sources, addresses, or links,” nor is it evident why this term
`
`requires further clarification at this time. See Ex. 1001, 3:44-54, 14:48-58.
`
`In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the term “a listing of network locations at which to access
`
`the streaming media” is “a listing of network locations at which content that
`
`is to be delivered as streaming media may be accessed.”
`
`B. Obviousness of Claims 16, 19, and 20 over Galensky and Bork
`
`Petitioners assert that claims 16, 19, and 20 are unpatentable under 35
`
`‘. U.S.C. § 103 over Galensky and Bork. In support of their argument,
`
`Petitioners provide detailed claims charts and rely on the supporting
`
`declaration testimony of Dr. Schuyler Quackenbush (Ex. 1015).
`3
`1. Galensky
`
`Galensky is directed to a “system, method and portable, wireless
`
`device for receiving, playing and storing streamed multimedia files over a
`
`wireless telecommunications network.” Ex. 1003, 3:13-17. The portable
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 8
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`device of Galensky includes a display, a rechargeable battery, a wireless
`
`transmitter, and a microprocessor. Id. at 421-33. The wireless device also
`
`contains various input controls for operating the device and for selecting
`multimedia files to be streamed from the multimedia server. Id. at 4:42-48.
`
`In the Galensky system, the media server “either stores multimedia
`files or a list of particular multimedia files and their respective
`
`address/location.” Id. at 527-9. When a wireless device connects to the
`
`media server, the system transmits a list of these available files and songs to
`the user. Id at 5:18-24. The user then may view this list on the visual
`
`display of the wireless device and, using the input controls, select desired
`
`songs or videos for streaming. Id. at 5:18-42.
`
`Galensky discloses initially streaming the desired content to a user at
`a high transmission rate. Id. at 5:66-6:27. Then, once a sufficient buffer has
`
`been established in the memory of the wireless device, the wireless device
`
`signals that a second, lower rate may be used. Id.
`
`2.
`
`Bork
`
`Bork is directed to a universal serial bus (“USB”) interface and cable.
`
`Ex. 1004, Abstract. The USB cable has multiple conductive elements,
`
`allowing an electronic device to simultaneously communicate with, and
`
`recharge the battery of,.a portable device. Id. at 5:12-14, 5:41-43, 6:66-7:12,
`
`8:18-28. According to Bork, this single cable system has numerous
`
`advantages. Id. at 2:54-63. First, a bulky electrical power transformer is not
`
`required for the portable device. Id. at 2:54-63, 5:5-15, Figs. 21, 22.
`
`Second, a user can synchronize data with a computer and download software
`
`updates for the portable device at the same time the battery of the portable
`
`device is being recharged. Id. at 4:17-24,_4:47-55, Fig. 22. Finally, a laptop
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 9
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 9
`
`
`
`' Case IPR2014—00209
`
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`computer running solely on battery power can recharge the battery of
`another portable device, which, acciordingto Bork, is useful when another
`source of power is unavailable. Id. at 8:18-28.
`1
`
`3. Analysis
`
`Petitioners contend that Galensky and Bork disclose all the limitations
`of claims 16, 19, and 20. For example, with respect to claim 16, Petitioners
`
`assert that Galensky discloses a portableldevice with a display, a
`rechargeable battery, a wireless transmitter, and a microprocessor. Pet. 19;
`
`Ex. 1003, 228-12, 411-41. Petitioners further assert that Galensky discloses a
`
`portable device having stored instructions operable to cause the processor:
`
`(1) to present an icon on a display that is associated with content that is
`
`deliverable as streaming media; (2) to recognize the selection of such an
`
`icon; and (3) to switch between a first, higher communications rate and a
`
`second, lower rate. Pet. 19-20. Petitioners also assert that Bork discloses a
`
`physical interface that permits an electronic device to both communicate
`
`with, and recharge the battery of, a portable device using a single cable
`having multiple conductive elements. Pet. 20-21, 26-29.; Ex. 1004, 5:12-14,
`
`6:66-7:12, 8:18-28.
`
`With respect to claim 19, Petitioners assert that Galensky discloses
`obtaining in the portable device a listing of network locations where selected
`
`content may be accessed, and causing a first of these network locations to be
`
`accessed to facilitate the streaming delivery of the selected content. Pet. 19,
`
`34; Ex. 1003, 523-9, 5:18-42; Ex. 1015 111] 59-61. With respect to claim 20,
`
`Petitioners assert that Galensky discloses streaming both audio and video
`
`files. Pet. 33.-34; Ex. 1003, 127-11, 4:42-48, 5:3-9, 5:18-24, 5:31-45.
`
`Petitioners, supported by the declaration testimony of Dr.
`
`10
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 10
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`Quackenbush, assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
`
`obvious to “incorporate Bork’s teachings of the advantageous use of a
`single, multiple-conductor cable (a USB cable) to provide both recharging
`and data communication capability between a PC and a portable device, in
`
`implementing Galensky’s portable device.” Pet. 21-22; Ex. 1015 1111 42-52.
`
`According to Petitioners, such a combination would simply bring together
`
`two known elements, “e.g., Bork’s USB for recharging the battery and
`Galensky’s portable device with data connectivity and switching
`
`communications rates,” with each performing the same function as it does
`
`separately, to yield predictable results. Pet. 24; Ex. 1015 1111 48-51; see also
`IKSR Int ’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
`398, 417 (2007) (noting that “when
`
`a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same
`
`function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would
`expect from such an arrangement,” the combination is likely obvious
`
`(internal quotations and citations omitted)).
`
`In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner asserts that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Galensky and Bork
`
`because “Galensky makes no mention of the disclosed device receiving data
`
`over a cable” and “one would not need a cable that could both charge the
`
`battery and transfer data for the device disclosed in Galensky.” Prelim.
`Resp. 11-12. Although Galensky is silent with respect to how the wireless
`
`device is recharged and updated, at this stage of the proceeding we find
`
`persuasive Dr. Quackenbush’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have found it both advantageous and obvious to incorporate Bork’s
`well-known USB interface into the wireless device of Galensky to allow for
`
`synchronizing, updating, and recharging of the wireless device using a single
`
`11
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 11
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`cable. Ex. 1015 111] 42-52; Ex. 1011, 17 (indicating that as early as
`
`September 23, 1998, the technical specifications of the USB interface and
`
`l
`cable were publically available).
`Patent Owner also argues that Galensky does not disclose that the
`
`portable device initiates the switch between a higher and a lower
`
`communications rate. Prelim. Resp. 16-17. At this stage of the proceeding,
`
`we do not find this argument persuasive, as Galensky explicitly discloses
`
`that the microprocessor of the portable device initiates the switch between a
`
`higher and a lower transmission rate:
`
`Once an acceptable buffer is created (e.g., approximately 5-10
`seconds of buffer), the microprocessor 82 will instruct the
`transceiver 94 to signal the wireless network 40 to decrease the
`data transmission rate to the minimum rate necessary for
`adequate transmission .
`-.
`.
`.
`
`VEX. 1003, 6:10-15; see also Ex. 1003, 4:1-8 (noting that transceiver 94 is
`
`part of thelwireless device and is connected to microprocessor 82), 4:33-35
`
`(noting that microprocessor 82 is part of the portable device).
`
`A
`
`Patent Owner further argues that Galensky only discloses transmitting
`
`to the portable device a list of available multimedia files, and not “a listing
`
`of network locations” where these files may be found. Prelim. Resp. 24-25.
`
`On this record, however, we conclude that Petitioners have presented
`sufficient evidence to show that Galensky’s multimedia servers maintain a.
`“list of particular multimedia files and their respective address/location” on I
`the network and that the user is provided with the address/location of
`
`‘
`
`selected files. Pet. 33; Ex. 1003, 4:58-60 (noting that the portable device of
`
`Galensky maintains a “list of previous files (e.g., songs) and/or links that
`
`were previously accessed”) (emphasis added), 5:3,-9, 5:18-24. 1
`
`'12
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 12
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR20l4—0O209
`
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`With respect to claim 19, Patent Owner argues that Galensky and
`
`Bork fail to disclose “multiple locations (plural) for a single selectable
`
`media.” Prelim. Resp. 24-25. We are not persuaded by this argument,
`
`because it is based on Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction that we
`did not adopt.
`.
`
`Upon review of Petitioners’ and Patent Owner’s arguments, we
`
`conclude that Petitioners have set forth sufficient articulated reasoning with
`
`rational underpinning to support the proposed combination of references.
`
`See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. We, therefore, are persuaded that the information
`
`presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail in
`showing claims 16, 19, and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious over Galensky and Bork.
`
`_
`
`,
`
`C. Obviousness of Claim 19 Over Galensky, Bork, and Carmel
`
`Petitioners contend that claim 19 also would have been obvious under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Galensky, Bork, and Carmel. Petitioners rely upon
`
`this ground of unpatentability to address Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`construction of “a listing of network locations at which to access the
`
`streaming media.” Pet. 53-55. As we have declined to adopt Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed construction, Petitioners’ ground relying on Galensky,
`
`Bork, and Carmelis redundant to the ground of unpatentability on which we
`
`initiate inter partes review. Therefore, we do not authorize an inter partes
`
`review on this ground.
`
`D. Obviousness of Claims 16, 19, and 20 Over Boys, Aaron, and Ravi
`and Claim 19 over Boys, Aaron, Ravi, and Carmel
`-
`
`Petitioners assert that claims 16, 19, and 20 are also unpatentable
`undei‘ 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Boys, Aaron, and Ravi, and that
`
`claim 19 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Boys,
`
`13
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 13‘
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014—OO209
`
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`Aaron, Ravi, and Carmel. Pet. 35, 53. Petitioners do not explain, however,
`
`why this set of references is stronger with respect to certain claims than
`
`Galensky and Bork. Therefore, we exercise our discretion not to go forward
`with all of the grounds proffered by Petitioners, and do not authorize an inter
`
`partes review on these grounds. See C.F.R. §442.108(a).
`
`111. CONCLUSION
`
`‘For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the information presented
`
`in the Petition and Preliminary Response establishes that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail in showing the
`
`unpatentability of claims 16, 19, and 20 of the ’390 patent.
`
`At this stage of the proceeding, the Board has not made a final
`determination as to the patentabilitly of any challenged claim.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is
`
`instituted as to claims 16, 19, and 20 of the ’390 patent on the following
`
`ground: claims 16, 19, and 20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`obvious’ over Galensky and Bork;
`'
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`
`partes review of the ’390 patent is hereby instituted commencing on the
`
`‘ entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds
`
`identified above and no other grounds are authorized.
`
`14
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 14
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00209
`
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`For PETITIONERS:
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`Gabrielle E. Higgins
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`steven.baughman@rogesgray.com
`gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.co1n
`
`Timothy J. May
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`timothy.may@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com .
`
`B. Todd Patterson
`
`Jerry R. Selinger
`PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP
`
`tpatterson(a2pattersonsheridan.com
`jse1inger@Qattersonsheridan.co1n
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Mark Rozman
`
`TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
`rozman@tphm.com
`
`Timothy G. Newman
`LARSON NEWMAN
`
`tnewman
`
`1arsonnewnian.com
`
`Ryan M.‘ Schultz
`ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
`rmschu1tz@,rkmc.corn
`
`15
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 15
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 15
`
`
`
`Trialsgagusgtogov
`571-272-7822
`
`Petper 17
`Entered: May 20, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD '
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`9 AIVIERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`AMERICA, LLC; LG ELECTRONICS, INC.; LG ELECTRONICS
`U.S.A., INC.; LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM USA, INC. ;
`I
`HTC CORP.; and HTC AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`\
`
`AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-00212
`
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 16
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 16
`
`
`
`4 Case IPR2014-00212
`
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`1. INTRODUCTION
`
`On December 2, 2013, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC,
`
`LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics
`
`Mobilecomm USA, Inc., HTC Corp., and HTC America, Inc. (“Petitioners”)
`
`‘filed a Petition forninterpartes review of claims 16, 19, and 20 of U.S.
`
`Patent 7,953,390 B2 (“the ’39O patent”). Paper 1. On December 12, 2013,
`
`-Petitioners filed a corrected Petition. Paper 10 (“Pet”). The owner of the
`’390 patent, Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC (“Patent Owner”), filed a
`‘
`
`Preliminary Response to the Petition on March 11, 2014. Paper 16 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`A
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a),‘which provides:
`
`TI-RESHOLD — The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311
`and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail
`
`with respect to claims 16, 19, and 20 of the ’390 patent. Accordingly,
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we authorize an inter partes review to be
`
`instituted as to those claims.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`The ’390 patent is being asserted in Afliidizy Labs ofTexas, LLC v.
`3 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 1:12—cv-557 (E.D. Tex.). Paper 15. The
`
`_
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 17
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00212
`
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`’390 patent is also the subject of pending inter partes review petition
`
`IPR2014-0020.9. Id.
`
`B. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Petitioners rely on the following prior art references:
`
`Him“
`
`B°"‘
`F“““
`Lee
`R“
`CW‘:
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioners assert the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 8-9):
`
`.as1s 1
`
`~'
`
`—
`
`{
`
`.
`
`
` )3“,
`
`1.-Iitson and Fuller
`Hitson, Bork, Fuller
`Lee, Bork, and Ravi
`Hitson, Fuller, and Carmel
`Hitson, Bork, Fuller, and
`Carmel
`
`'
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§103
`
`19
`
`§103
`Lee, Bork, Ravi, and Carmel
`
`
`D. The ’390 Patent
`
`The ’390 patent is directed to a delivery system for digitally stored
`_ content. Ex. 1101, 1:17-19. In particular, the ’390 patent relates to the
`wireless delivery of media content, such as songs, video, on—line radio
`
`stations, on-line broadcasts, and text. Id. at 2:55-59, 3:10-15, 3:37-39,
`
`3
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 18
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00212
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`1424.1-44.
`
`Many different wireless devices may be used to select and receive
`
`media content in the system and method of the ’390 patent, including “a
`
`network radio, a modular device, an audio system, a personal digital
`
`assistant (PDA), a cellular phone, or other electronic devices operable to
`
`receive information wirelessly.” Id at 4229-32., In at least one embodiment,
`
`the wireless device contains a physical interface that allows a different
`electronic device to communicate with, and to recharge the battery of, the
`
`wireless device using a single cable having multiple conductive elements.
`
`See id. at 17:18-62, 2029-20.
`
`In one embodiment of the ’3 90 patent, a user selects desired audio
`
`information from a webpage. Id. at 14:34-44. This audio information may
`
`include “a single song, a plurality [of] different songs,” or “an entire album.”
`Id. at 14:42-44. After the user finishes selecting the desired songs, the
`
`system creates both a playlist and a listing of “network or URL locations”
`
`where the songs on the playlist may be found. Id.,at 14:44-53. The songs on
`
`the playlist then are retrieved from one or more of the listed network
`
`1
`
`locations and streamed to the user. Id. at 5:58-6:10, 14:50-61, 15:46-51.
`
`The selected songs may be streamed to a user over a high-speed
`
`wireless communications network. Id. at 5:64-6:7. In this
`
`embodiment, selected content is delivered initially to the wireless
`
`device at a high transmission rate. Id. Once a sufficient buffer has _
`
`been established in the memory of the wireless device, the rest of the
`
`selected content then is transmitted at a second, slower rate. Id.
`
`E. Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, only claim 16 is independent. Claim 16 and
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 19
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00212
`
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`dependent claim 19 are illustrative of the claims at issue and are reproduced
`
`below:
`
`16. A system for content delivery, comprising:
`a portable device having a display, a local rechargeable battery,
`a wireless communication system, and a processor; ‘
`
`a physical interface of the portable device, the physical
`interface configured to connect to an interface system that
`includes a cable having multiple conductive elements,
`wherein the physical interface is designed such that a
`different electronic device can be communicatively coupled
`with the physical interface of the portable device using the
`interface system in a manner that allows the different
`electronic device to recharge the local rechargeable battery
`using at least one of the multiple conductive elements and to
`communicate with the portable device using at least one other
`of the multiple conductive elements; and
`
`a computer-readable medium having stored instructions that
`when executed are operable to cause the processor: (1) to
`present an icon on the display, the icon associatedwith
`content that is deliverable as streaming media; (2) to
`recognize a selection of the icon; and (3) to switch between a
`set of communication rates at which the portable device
`receives a first portion and a second portion of the content,
`wherein the set of communication rates comprise at least a
`‘first data rate and a second data rate that is slower than the
`
`first data rate.
`
`19. The system of claim 16, wherein the stored instructions
`are further operable to cause the processor: (1) to obtain a
`listing of network locations at which to access the streaming
`media; and (2) to causea first of the network locations to be
`accessed to facilitate a streaming delivery of the streaming
`media.
`
`(line breaks added for readability).
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 20
`
`Samsung Ex. 1414 p. 20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00212
`
`Patent 7,953,390 B2
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be
`
`given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patentin which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). In
`
`determining the broadest reasonable construction, a claim term is presumed
`
`to carry its ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech.,
`
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This presumption may be
`
`rebutted when a patentee, acting as a lexicographer, sets forth an alternate
`
`definition of a term in the specification with reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994).
`
`‘
`
`Petitioners provide proposedconstructions f
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
