UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PERSONAL AUDIO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00846
`Patent 7,509,178
`_______________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. KEVIN C. ALMEROTH
`
`

`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`I. Qualifications, Background, and Experience ...................................................... 1
`
`II. Compensation ...................................................................................................... 9
`
`III. Proceedings to Date ........................................................................................ 10
`
`IV. Materials Reviewed ........................................................................................ 11
`
`V. Legal Principles Used in Analysis ..................................................................... 12
`
`A. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................ 12
`
`B. Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 12
`
`C. Validity ........................................................................................................... 13
`
`VI. Overview of U.S. Patents 6,199,076 and 7,509,178 ...................................... 16
`
`VII. Overview of Prior Art ..................................................................................... 20
`
`A. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0177914 (“Chase”) ..................... 20
`
`B. Architecting Personalized Delivery of Multimedia Information by Shoshana
`Loeb ...................................................................................................................... 24
`
`C. Inazawa ........................................................................................................... 26
`
`VIII. Opinions .......................................................................................................... 27
`
`A. There is No Motivation to Combine Chase and the Loeb Article in the
`Claimed Arrangement to Produce a Personalized Audio Program Player .......... 27
`
`B. The Specific Controls and Control Algorithms Claimed by the Patent Are
`Not Obvious Design Choices ............................................................................... 32
`
`C. Objective Indicia Further Demonstrate the Non-Obviousness of the Claimed
`Invention .............................................................................................................. 37
`
`IX. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`I, Kevin C. Almeroth, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Qualifications, Background, and Experience
`
`1. My name is Kevin C. Almeroth. I understand that my declaration is being
`
`submitted in connection with inter partes review proceedings IPR2015-00845 and
`
`IPR2015-00846.
`
`2.
`
`I am currently a Professor in the Department of Computer Science at the
`
`University of California, Santa Barbara. I also hold an appointment and am a
`
`founding member of the Computer Engineering (CE) Program. I am a founding
`
`member of the Media Arts and Technology (MAT) Program, and the Technology
`
`Management Program (TMP). I also served as the Associate Director of the
`
`Center for Information Technology and Society (CITS) from 1999 to 2012. I have
`
`been a faculty member at UCSB since July 1997.
`
`3.
`
`I hold three degrees from the Georgia Institute of Technology: (1) a
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in Information and Computer Science (with minors in
`
`Economics, Technical Communication, American Literature) earned in June, 1992;
`
`(2) a Master of Science degree in Computer Science (with specialization in
`
`Networking and Systems) earned in June, 1994; and (3) a Doctor of Philosophy
`
`(Ph.D.) degree in Computer Science (Dissertation Title: Networking and System
`
`Support for the Efficient, Scalable Delivery of Services in Interactive Multimedia
`
`System, minor in Telecommunications Public Policy) earned in June, 1997.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`4. One of the major themes of my research has been the delivery of
`
`multimedia content and data between computing devices and users. In my research
`
`I have looked at large-scale content delivery systems and the use of servers located
`
`in a variety of geographic locations to provide scalable delivery to hundreds, even
`
`thousands, of users simultaneously. I have also looked at smaller-scale content
`
`delivery systems in which content, including interactive communication like voice
`
`and video data, is exchanged between computers and portable computing devices.
`
`As a broad theme, my work has examined how to exchange content more
`
`efficiently across computer networks, including the devices that switch and route
`
`data traffic. More specific topics include the scalable delivery of content to many
`
`users, mobile computing, satellite networking, delivering content to mobile
`
`devices, and network support for data delivery in wireless network.
`
`5. Beginning in 1992, when I started graduate school, the first focus of my
`
`research was on the provision of interactive functions (VCR-style functions like
`
`pause, rewind, and fast-forward) for near video-on-demand systems in cable
`
`systems, in particular, how to aggregate requests for movies at a cable head-end
`
`and then how to satisfy a multitude of requests using one audio/video stream
`
`broadcast to multiple receivers simultaneously. Continued evolution of this
`
`research has resulted in the development of new techniques to scalably deliver on-
`
`demand content, including audio, video, web documents, and other types of data,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`through the Internet and over other types of networks, including over cable
`
`systems, broadband telephone lines, and satellite links.
`
`6. An important component of my research from the very beginning has been
`
`investigating the challenges of communicating multimedia content between
`
`computers and across networks. Although the early Internet was designed mostly
`
`for text-based non-real time applications, the interest in sharing multimedia content
`
`quickly developed. Multimedia-based applications ranged from downloading
`
`content to a device to streaming multimedia content to be instantly used. One of
`
`the challenges was that multimedia content is typically larger than text-only
`
`content but there are also opportunities to use different delivery techniques since
`
`multimedia content is more resilient to errors. I have worked on a variety of
`
`research problems and used a number of systems that were developed to deliver
`
`multimedia content to users.
`
`7. 1994, I began to research issues associated with the development and
`
`deployment of a one-to-many communication facility (called “multicast”) in the
`
`Internet (first deployed as the Multicast Backbone, a virtual overlay network
`
`supporting one-to-many communication). Some of my more recent research
`
`endeavors have looked at how to use the scalability offered by multicast to provide
`
`streaming media support for complex applications like distance learning,
`
`distributed collaboration, distributed games, and large-scale wireless
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`communication. Multicast has also been used as the delivery mechanism in
`
`systems that perform local filtering (i.e., sending the same content to a large
`
`number of users and allowing them to filter locally content in which they are not
`
`interested).
`
`8. Starting in 1997, I worked on a project to integrate the streaming media
`
`capabilities of the Internet together with the interactivity of the web. I developed a
`
`project called the Interactive Multimedia Jukebox (IMJ). Users would visit a web
`
`page and select content to view. The content would then be scheduled on one of a
`
`number of channels, including delivery to students in Georgia Tech dorms
`
`delivered via the campus cable plant. The content of each channel was delivered
`
`using multicast communication.
`
`9.
`
`In the IMJ, the number of channels varied depending on the capabilities of
`
`the server including the available bandwidth of its connection to the Internet. If
`
`one of the channels was idle, the requesting user would be able to watch their
`
`selection immediately. If all channels were streaming previously selected content,
`
`the user’s selection would be queued on the channel with the shortest wait time. In
`
`the meantime, the user would see what content was currently playing on other
`
`channels, and because of the use of multicast, would be able to join one of the
`
`existing channels and watch the content at the point it was currently being
`
`transmitted.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`10. The IMJ service combined the interactivity of the web with the streaming
`
`capabilities of the Internet to create a jukebox-like service. It supported true
`
`Video-on-Demand when capacity allowed, but scaled to any number of users based
`
`on queuing requested programs. As part of the project, we obtained permission
`
`from Turner Broadcasting to transmit cartoons and other short-subject content. We
`
`also attempted to connect the IMJ into the Georgia Tech campus cable television
`
`network so that students in their dorms could use the web to request content and
`
`then view that content on one of the campus’s public access channels.
`
`11. More recently, I have also studied issues concerning how users choose
`
`content, especially when considering the price of that content. My research has
`
`examined how dynamic content pricing can be used to control system load. By
`
`raising prices when systems start to become overloaded (i.e., when all available
`
`resources are fully utilized) and reducing prices when system capacity is readily
`
`available, users’ capacity to pay as well as their willingness can be used as factors
`
`in stabilizing the response time of a system. This capability is particularly useful in
`
`systems where content is downloaded or streamed to users on-demand.
`
`12. As a parallel research theme, starting in 1997, I began researching issues
`
`related to wireless devices. In particular, I was interested in showing how to
`
`provide greater communication capability to “lightweight devices,” i.e., small
`
`form-factor, resource-constrained (e.g., CPU, memory, networking, and power)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`devices. Starting by at least 2004 I researched techniques to wirelessly disseminate
`
`information, for example advertisements, between users using ad hoc networks. In
`
`the system, called Coupons, an incentive scheme is used to encourage users to
`
`relay information, including advertisements, to other nearby users.
`
`13. Starting in 1998, I published several papers on my work to develop a
`
`flexible, lightweight, battery-aware network protocol stack. The lightweight
`
`protocols we envisioned were similar in nature to protocols like Universal Plug and
`
`Play (UPnP) and Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA).
`
`14. From this initial work, I have made wireless networking-including ad hoc
`
`and mesh networks and wireless devices-one of the major themes of my research.
`
`One topic includes developing applications for mobile devices, for example, virally
`
`exchanging and tracking “coupons” through “opportunistic contact” (i.e.,
`
`communication with other devices coming into communication range with a user).
`
`Other topics include building network communication among a set of mobile
`
`devices unaided by any other kind of network infrastructure. Yet another theme is
`
`monitoring wireless networks, in particular different variants of IEEE 802.11
`
`compliant networks, to (1) understand the operation of the various protocols used
`
`in real-world deployments, (2) use these measurements to characterize use of the
`
`networks and identify protocol limitations and weaknesses, and (3) propose and
`
`evaluate solutions to these problems.
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`15. As an important component of my research program, I have been involved
`
`in the development of academic research into available technology in the market
`
`place. One aspect of this work is my involvement in the Internet Engineering Task
`
`Force (IETF) including many content delivery-related working groups like the
`
`Audio Video Transport (AVT) group, the MBone Deployment (MBONED) group,
`
`Source Specific Multicast (SSM) group, the Inter- Domain Multicast Routing
`
`(IDMR) group, the Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) group, the Protocol
`
`Independent Multicast (PIM) group, etc. I have also served as a member of the
`
`Multicast Directorate (MADDOGS), which oversaw the standardization of all
`
`things related to multicast in the IETF. Finally, I was the Chair of the Internet2
`
`Multicast Working Group for seven years.
`
`16. I am an author or co-author of nearly 200 technical papers, published
`
`software systems, IETF Internet Drafts and IETF Request for Comments (RFCs).
`
`17. My involvement in the research community extends to leadership positions
`
`for several journals and conferences. I am the co-chair of the Steering Committee
`
`for the ACM Network and System Support for Digital Audio and Video
`
`(NOSSDAV) workshop and on the Steering Committees for the International
`
`Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), ACM Sigcomm Workshop on
`
`Challenged Networks (CHANTS), and IEEE Global Internet (GI) Symposium. I
`
`have served or am serving on the editorial boards of IEEE/ACM Transactions on
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Networking, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, IEEE Transactions on
`
`Networks and System Management, IEEE Network, ACM Computers in
`
`Entertainment, AACE Journal of Interactive Learning Research (JILR), and ACM
`
`Computer Communications Review.
`
`18. I have co-chaired a number of conferences and workshops including the
`
`IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), ACM International
`
`Conference on Next Generation Communication (CoNext), IEEE Conference on
`
`Sensor, Mesh and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks (SECON), International
`
`Conference on Communication Systems and Networks (COMSNETS), IFIP/IEEE
`
`International Conference on Management of Multimedia Networks and Services
`
`(MMNS), the International Workshop On Wireless Network Measurement
`
`(WiNMee), ACM Sigcomm Workshop on Challenged Networks (CHANTS), the
`
`Network Group Communication (NGC) workshop, and the Global Internet
`
`Symposium; and I have been on the program committee of numerous conferences.
`
`19. Furthermore, in the courses I teach, the class spends significant time
`
`covering all aspects of the Internet including each of the layers of the Open System
`
`Interconnect (OSI) protocol stack commonly used in the Internet. These layers
`
`include the physical and data link layers and their handling of signal modulation,
`
`error control, and data transmission. I also teach DOCSIS, DSL, and other
`
`standardized protocols for communicating across a variety of physical media
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`including cable systems, telephone lines, wireless, and high-speed Local Area
`
`Networks (LANs). I teach the configuration and operation of switches, routers,
`
`and gateways including routing and forwarding and the numerous respective
`
`protocols as they are standardized and used throughout the Internet. Topics
`
`include a wide variety of standardized Internet protocols at the Network Layer
`
`(Layer 3), Transport Layer (Layer 4), and above.
`
`20. In addition to having co-founded a technology company myself, I have
`
`worked for, consulted with, and collaborated with companies such as IBM, Hitachi
`
`Telecom, Digital Fountain, RealNetworks, Intel Research, Cisco Systems, and
`
`Lockheed Martin.
`
`21. I am a Member of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) and a
`
`Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
`
`22. Additional details about my employment history, fields of expertise, and
`
`publications are further described in my curriculum vitae (see Attachment A).
`
`Included in this exhibit is a list of my prior testimony in the last four years.
`
`II. Compensation
`
`23. I am being compensated for my work in this matter by Personal Audio,
`
`LLC, at my usual and customary rate of $500 per hour. I have no personal or
`
`financial stake or interest in the outcome of the above-references case or any
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`related action. My compensation is not dependent upon my testimony or the
`
`outcome of this proceeding.
`
`III. Proceedings to Date
`
`24. I have been informed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board)
`
`has granted petitions by Google, Inc. (Petitioner) seeking inter partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,199,076 (the ’076 patent) and 7,509,178 (the ’178 patent) by
`
`James Logan et al. It is my understanding the Board institute review of the ’178
`
`patent on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1 - claims 1-4, 9 and 13 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2002/0177914, published Nov. 28, 2002 (“Chase”) and
`
`Shoshana Loeb, Architecting Personalized Delivery of Multimedia
`
`Information, VOL. 35, NO. 12 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM 39-48
`
`(Dec. 1992) (“Loeb Article”).
`
`Ground 2 - claims 5, 6, 14-17, 28 and 29 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) over Chase, Loeb, and U.S. Patent No. 4,811,315, issued Mar. 7,
`
`1989 (“Inazawa”).
`
`Ground 3 - claims 7 and 8 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chase,
`
`Loeb, Inazawa, and U.S. Patent No. 4,609,954, issued Sept. 2, 1986
`
`(“Bolton”).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`It is also my understanding the Board instituted review of the ’076 patent on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground 1 - claims 1 and 4 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chase
`
`and the Loeb Article.
`
`Ground 2 - claims 2, 3, 14, and 15 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`over Chase, the Loeb Article, and Inazawa.
`
`IV. Materials Reviewed
`
`25. In performing the analysis that is the subject of my testimony, I reviewed
`
`the ’076 and ’178 patents and their file histories, as well as various public
`
`documents from litigations in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of
`
`Texas including Personal Audio LLC v. Apple, Inc. et al, 9:09-cv-00111 (E.D.
`
`Tex.) and Personal Audio LLC v. Acer Inc. et al, 1:14-cv-00008 (E.D. Tex.). I have
`
`also reviewed the documents put forward by Petitioner in this case, including (1)
`
`the Petition; (2) the Declaration of Dr. Martin Walker, Ph.D.; (3) the Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response; (4) the Board’s Institution Decision; (5) and
`
`Petitioner’s prior art, including Chase, the Loeb Article, and Inazawa.
`
`Additionally, I have also taken into account my knowledge in the filed gained from
`
`over 25 years of experience.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`V. Legal Principles Used in Analysis
`
`A.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`26. It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a person who
`
`would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution in
`
`either computer science or computer engineering with a concentration of courses in
`
`programming and the development and use of hardware and software, and
`
`approximately two to three years of programming experience or additional
`
`graduate education that could substitute for this experience.
`
`27. Based on this definition, I am one of ordinary skill in the art and was one
`
`of at least ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This opinion is
`
`based on my review of the patents-in-suit and my own personal experience
`
`working with students and collaborating with industry. In arriving at my opinions
`
`and conclusions in this declaration, I have considered the issues from the
`
`perspective of my hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`28. For purposes of this opinion, I used the constructions of the PTAB and the
`
`District Court relied upon by the Petitioner. I understand that the PTAB uses the
`
`broadest reasonable construction to interpret the claims of a patent. Under this
`
`standard, I understand that the claim terms are given the broadest reasonable
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`meaning of the words in their regular usage as a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand them in light of the patent specification. .
`
`C. Validity
`
`29. I understand that the Petitioner bears the burden of proving the instituted
`
`grounds of invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that a
`
`“preponderance” means “more likely than not.” I understand that general and
`
`conclusory assertions, without underlying factual evidence, may not support a
`
`conclusion that something is “more likely than not.” Rather, the preponderance of
`
`the evidence standard requires that a reasonable finder of fact be convinced that the
`
`existence of a specific material fact is more probable than the non-existence of that
`
`fact. The preponderance of the evidence standard does not support speculation
`
`regarding specific facts, and is instead focused on whether the evidence more
`
`likely than not demonstrates the existence or non-existence of specific material
`
`facts.
`
`30. I have been informed that a reference may qualify as prior art as to the
`
`patents-in-suit if it was known or used by others in this country, or patented or
`
`described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention
`
`by the patent holder. I have also been informed that a reference may qualify as
`
`prior art to the patents-in-suit if the invention was patented or described in a
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this
`
`country, more than one year before the effective filing date.
`
`31. I also understand that, in performing a proper unpatentability analysis, an
`
`expert must do more than simply provide quotes from the evidentiary record along
`
`with conclusory allegations of unpatentability. To the contrary, an expert’s
`
`conclusions regarding unpatentability must be supported by actual analysis and
`
`reasoning set forth in the expert declaration, such that the theoretical and factual
`
`foundation for the expert’s conclusions can be properly evaluated.
`
`32. I understand that a patent claim may be found unpatentable as obvious only
`
`if the Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that, as of the
`
`priority date, the subject matter of the claim, considered as a whole, would have
`
`been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the field of the technology (the
`
`“art”) to which the claimed subject matter belongs.
`
`33. I understand that the analysis of whether a claim is obvious depends on a
`
`number of necessary factual inquiries, for example, (1) the scope and content of the
`
`prior art; (2) the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness.
`
`34. I have also been informed that the claimed invention must be considered as
`
`a whole in analyzing obviousness or nonobviousness. In determining the
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`differences between the prior art and the claims, the question under the
`
`obviousness inquiry is not whether the differences themselves would have been
`
`obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious.
`
`Relatedly, I understand that it may be appropriate to consider whether there is
`
`evidence of a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to combine the prior art
`
`teachings in the prior art, the nature of the problem or the knowledge of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`35. I have been informed that a claim can be obvious in light of a single prior
`
`art reference or multiple prior art references. To be obvious in light of a single
`
`prior art reference or multiple prior art references, there must be a reason to modify
`
`the single prior art reference, or combine two or more references, in order to
`
`achieve the claimed invention. This reason may come from a teaching, suggestion,
`
`or motivation to combine, or may come from the reference or references
`
`themselves, the knowledge or “common sense” of one skilled in the art, or from
`
`the nature of the problem to be solved, and may be explicit or implicit from the
`
`prior art as a whole. I have been informed that the combination of familiar
`
`elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
`
`than yield predictable results. I also understand it is improper to rely on hindsight
`
`in making the obviousness determination. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`
`398, 421 (2007).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`36. I understand that one indicator of nonobviousness is when prior art
`
`“teaches away” from combining certain known elements. For example, a prior art
`
`reference teaches away from the patent’s particular combination if it leads in a
`
`different direction or discourages that combination, recommends steps that would
`
`not likely lead to the patent’s result, or otherwise indicates that a seemingly
`
`inoperative device would be produced.
`
`37. I further understand that objective indicia of nonobviousness play a critical
`
`role in the obviousness analysis, and these indicia “can be the most probative
`
`evidence of non-obviousness in the record, and enables a court to avert the trap of
`
`hindsight. Evidence rising out of the objective indicia must always be considered,
`
`when present, in a determination of obviousness.
`
`VI. Overview of U.S. Patents 6,199,076 and 7,509,178
`
`38. The claimed invention of U.S. Patents 7,509,178 and 6,199,076 is a
`
`personalized audio player which receives selected player programs and a file
`
`defining a sequence the programs are to be played based on listener preferences
`
`from a digital library. See, e.g., ’178 patent, abstract, 2:3-58; 8:20-53, Fig. 2. One
`
`of the key problems that the player was intended to address was that existing
`
`player systems, particularly broadcast systems, were directed to general audiences
`
`and failed to provide an audio program that is tailored to the preferences of an
`
`individual listener:
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Unfortunately, since most broadcast stations attempting to appeal to the
`same general listening audience, much of the programming is duplicative
`and special interest programs are broadcast on a limited basis. In addition,
`because there is no convenient way for listeners to be aware of the wide
`variety of materials scheduled for broadcast, most people listen to only a
`limited number of stations which dependably broadcast the programming
`considered to be most acceptable. Even when desired programming is
`found, it must typically be listened to when it is broadcast; that is, at times
`chosen by the broadcaster and not the listener.
`
`Id., 1:24-37. Another problem sought to be addressed by the patent is the ability to
`
`provide personalized programming using only simple playback controls:
`
`It is accordingly an object of the present invention to provide easy access to
`rich selection of audio programming and to allow the listener to dynamically
`and interactively locate and select desired programming from the available
`collection in an easy and intuitive way without the need for a visual display
`screen and using only simple selection controls.
`
`Id., 2:3-8. Furthermore, the patent also describes the art as being deficient because
`
`existing players often require the listener to individually select each song of a
`
`given audio program:
`
`Although Internet radio systems make it possible to deliver a richly diverse
`selection of audio programs to interested listeners on request, including
`specialized information not offered by conventional broadcast media, the
`use of a visual web browser to search for and then play individual
`program selections one at a time makes conventional Internet radio
`players impractical for routine desktop use, and wholly unsuitable for use
`by an automobile drive.
`
`Id., 1:62-2:2.
`
`These three objectives drive the solution provided by the patent. The
`
`proposed solution is a player that uses a novel host client architecture which
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`enables a listener to interactively select (or to have selected based upon the
`
`listener’s preferences) audio program segments from a digital program library
`
`located on the host. Id., 7:2-9; 8:48-53. The host then creates a personalized
`
`playback program based on the listener’s preferences and provides the listener’s
`
`client the selected programs in the form of a sequence file1 (i.e., a playlist) based
`
`on listener preferences via the distribution algorithm depicted in Figure 2. Id.,
`
`1:11-16, 6:22-7:22, 8:16-9:17, Fig. 2. The program segments identified by the
`
`sequence file are then played to the listener in the selected sequence during a
`
`playback session. The Patent’s embodiments and claims repeatedly describe the
`
`use of a sequencing file created from the preferences (selections and preference
`
`data) of the listener to create a personalized playback program:
`
`The data downloaded includes a recommended program sequence file
`which provisionally identifies the order in which downloaded program
`segments are to be played, with the initial selection and sequence being
`established based on user preference data by the download compilation
`processing mechanism seen at 151 at the server.
`
`***
`The audio program player as set forth in claim 1 wherein each audio
`program file in said collection specified by said sequencing file is selected in
`accordance with program preference data or program selections accepted
`from said listener to define a playback session that is personalized to the
`preferences of said listener.
`
`
`1The claims require receiving or downloading a sequencing file to specify a
`sequence of audio files. The sequencing file must be used for playback by
`referencing the sequencing information within the file to determine the order that
`the audio files are to be played.
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`***
`
`The host server 101 additionally stores and maintains a user data and usage
`log database indicated at 143 which stores uploaded usage data received
`from the store 109 in the player 103 via the Internet pathway 123 and the
`FTP server interface 125. The user data 143 further contains additional data
`describing the preferences, demographic characteristics and program
`selections unique to each subscriber which is developed largely from user-
`supplied data obtained when users submit HTML form data via the Internet
`pathway 123 for processing by the CGI mechanism 127.
`
`***
`As noted earlier, the program segments which are available in a master
`library are described in a catalog and associated with descriptors of various
`kinds, allowing the content of the compilation to be tailored to the
`preferences of the subscriber, both through express selections made by the
`subscriber and by selections (or suggestions) made automatically by
`matching the subscribers known preferences and interests against
`descriptors which characterize the programs segments, as previously
`described.
`
`Id. at 8:48-53, 46:19-28, 6:50-59, 29:5-30. The key feature of personalization was
`
`further used to distinguish the claimed invention over generic prior art players
`
`without such functionality during prosecution:
`
`By downloading a sequencing file from a server computer to the player that
`specifies an ordered sequence of audio programs that are selected in
`accordance with preference data or programs previously accepted from the
`listener, the claimed system is able to define and provide to the listener a
`personalized, automated listening session. … Nothing like this mechanism
`for defining the content and sequence of a collection of audio program files
`that provide a personalized playback session or suggested by either Janky or
`Hair.
`
`Ex. 2014, 93-94.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`
`The above player solution addresses each of the problems identified above.
`
`First, since the sequencing file provided by the host is based upon selections and
`
`preferences of the individual listener, the resultant audio program is personalized
`
`for the user. This avoids the problem the audio program being directed to “the
`
`same general listening audience,” the lack of “special interest programs,” and
`
`programs being “chosen by the broadcaster and not the listener.” ’178 patent,
`
`1:28-37. Similarly, by using a host server for program selections, the invention
`
`advantageously allows listeners to access a broad range of programming using the
`
`systems and controls of the host but still maintain only a simple player with simple
`
`controls. Id., 2:2-8. Finally, since the sequencing file based personal preferences
`
`of an individual listener is provided to a player, the player can continuously