Case 1:14-cv-00008-RC Document 194 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 47 PageID #: 1361
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`BEAUMONT DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`Defendants.
`
`§
`_____________________________________________________________________________
`PERSONAL AUDIO, LLC,
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00008
`
` Jury Trial Demanded
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00513
`
` Jury Trial Demanded
`
`PERSONAL AUDIO, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ACER INC., et al.,
`
`v.
`
`FUHU INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF PERSONAL AUDIO, LLC’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`IPR2015-00846 Lenovo (United States) Inc v Personal Audio LLC Ex. 2001
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00008-RC Document 194 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 47 PageID #: 1362
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................................... 2
`III.
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION ........................................................................................... 2
`IV.
`CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS ..................................................................................... 5
`A.“Means for Receiving / Storing” Terms ....................................................................................... 5
`1. “Means for receiving and storing a file of data establishing a sequence in which said
`program segments are scheduled to be reproduced by said player…” (’076 patent, claim
`1) ........................................................................................................................................ 5
`2. “Means for storing a plurality of program segments, each of said program segments
`having a beginning and an end” (’076 patent, claim 1) ................................................... 12
`3. “Player,” “Audio Program Player,” “Programmed Digital Computer” ........................... 13
`B.“Downloading” Terms ................................................................................................................ 14
`4. “Downloading” (‘178 patent, claims 1 & 14 and ‘076 patent claim 1) ........................... 14
`C.“Sequencing File” Terms ............................................................................................................ 16
`5. “File of data establishing a sequence” (‘076 patent, claims 1 & 14); “sequencing file”
`(‘178 patent, claim 1); “playback session sequencing file” (‘178 patent, claim 14) ....... 16
`6. “Selected Audio Program Segment” (‘076 patent, claim 1) ............................................ 18
`D.“Means Responsive” Terms ....................................................................................................... 20
`7. “General Purpose Computer” and “Player Client” .......................................................... 20
`8. The Playback Control Features in the Patents-In-Suit Do Not Necessitate the Use of a
`“LocType” Value or a “Received” Sequencing File ....................................................... 22
`E.“Means for Detecting” Terms ..................................................................................................... 36
`9. “Means for Detecting . . . “ (’076 patent, claims 1 & 2) ................................................ 36
`10.“Editing Means” Terms (‘076 patent, claims 5 & 6) ...................................................... 38
`11.“File” (‘076 patent, claims 1 &14 and ‘178 patent, claim 1) .......................................... 40
`
`i
`IPR2015-00846 Lenovo (United States) Inc v Personal Audio LLC Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00008-RC Document 194 Filed 02/20/15 Page 3 of 47 PageID #: 1363
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`180s, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100758 (D. Md. July 24, 2014) .......................................................................... 28
`
`Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc.,
`659 F. 3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................................... 24
`
`Alexam, Inc. v. Best Buy Co.,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49511 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2012) ......................................................................... 35
`
`Am. Med. Sys. v. Biolitec,
`618 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................... 13, 18, 19
`
`Arbitron, Inc. v. Int’l Demographics Inc.,
`2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1382 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2009) ............................................................................ 37
`
`Asyst Tech. v. Empak, Inc.,
`268 F. 3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................................................... 11, 27
`
`Better Education, Inc. v. eInstruction Corp.,
`2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40972 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2010) ....................................................................... 37
`
`Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.,
`250 F.3d 1369 (Fed.Cir.2001) .................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`296 F.3d 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................................. 16
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................................. 13, 18
`
`Ciena Corp. v. Nortel Networks Inc.,
`2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97450 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2006) ....................................................................... 27
`
`DealerTrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................................................... 24, 25
`
`Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`412 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................................ 27
`
`Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elecs., Inc.,
`355 Fed. Appx. 389 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................................... 37
`
`IPR2015-00846 Lenovo (United States) Inc v Personal Audio LLC Ex. 2001
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00008-RC Document 194 Filed 02/20/15 Page 4 of 47 PageID #: 1364
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................................ 37
`
`Gen. Atomics Diazyme Labs. Div. v. Axis-Shield ASA,
`277 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................................................... 19
`
`Generation II Orthotics Inc. v. Med. Tech Inc.,
`263 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................................. 16
`
`Golight v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`355 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................................. 30
`
`Hyperphrase Techs., LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`260 Fed. Appx. 274 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................. 24, 25
`
`JVW Enters. v. Interact Accessories, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................................ 29
`
`Micro Chem., Inc., v. Great Plains Chem. Co., Inc.,
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed.Cir.1999) ............................................................................................................ 27, 29
`
`Mobile Telecoms. Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138786 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2014) ..................................................................... 11
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ............................................................................................................................. 38
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`498 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................................. 10
`
`Pragmatus Telecom, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of Am., Inc.,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125750 (D. Del. Sept. 9, 2014) .................................................................... 27, 28
`
`Rodime PLC v. Seagate Tech., Inc.,
`174 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................................ 29
`
`Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson,
`712 F.3d 549 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................................... 10
`
`SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.,
`727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................................................... 24, 25
`
`Superguide v. DirecTV Ent, Inc.,
`358 F.2d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................................ 16, 17
`
`iii
`IPR2015-00846 Lenovo (United States) Inc v Personal Audio LLC Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00008-RC Document 194 Filed 02/20/15 Page 5 of 47 PageID #: 1365
`
`Teles AG Informationsctechnologien,
`Appeal No. 2012-1297 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................... 16
`
`U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Ricoh Ams. Corp.,
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117421 (E.D. Tex., 2013) ................................................................................... 28
`
`U.S. Phillips Corp. v. Iwasaki Elec. Co.,
`505 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................................... 11, 27
`Statutes
`35 USC § 112 ..................................................................................................................................... 6, 12, 35
`
`iv
`IPR2015-00846 Lenovo (United States) Inc v Personal Audio LLC Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00008-RC Document 194 Filed 02/20/15 Page 6 of 47 PageID #: 1366
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff Personal Audio, LLC (“Personal Audio”) submits this brief to address the appropriate
`
`construction of certain claim terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,199,076 (the “’076 patent”) and U.S. Patent
`
`7,509,178 (the “’178 patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”) (Exhibits A & B) that are significant
`
`to the resolution of the dispute between Plaintiff and Defendants.
`
`This Court has previously conducted a Markman hearing and construed a significant number of
`
`claim terms with regard to the patents-in-suit. Many of those terms included means-plus-function
`
`limitations, which the Court provided detailed corresponding algorithmic structures. With regard to
`
`the prior constructions, Plaintiff generally requests that the same be adopted in this matter with a few
`
`notable exceptions. Appendix A is a chart of the disputed terms, the Court’s previous constructions,
`
`and the parties’ respective positions against the previous constructions.
`
`The disputed claim construction issues among the parties fall into six general categories:
`
`Claim Categories:
`A. “Means for Receiving
`/ Storing” terms
`
`Issues:
`The dispute concerning these claim terms is centered on whether
`the means for receiving and storing a file should be construed as
`hardware (i.e. a general purpose modem and conventional
`memory), as contended by Defendants, or whether the claim should
`be construed as algorithmic structure as found in player
`programming (i.e. requiring the player programming that creates a
`communication link over the Internet with a host digital library that
`the specification clearly links to the function of receiving and
`storing sequencing file), as contended by Plaintiff. Plaintiff
`proposes changes to the previous constructions to account for the
`“player client” environment as taught by the claims. Defendants
`seek to adopt the previous constructions, which Plaintiff contends
`are in error.
`
`B. “Downloading” terms While the Court has previously construed “downloading,” in
`connection with “a communication port,” Plaintiff respectfully
`requests modifications to that previous construction to account for
`the client-server environment of what is taught by the patent.
`Defendants propose a construction that improperly imports
`limitations into the claim language in attempt to rewrite the claim.
`
`C. “Sequencing File”
`terms
`
`Plaintiff requests the Court adopt its previous constructions and
`refutes Defendants’ argument that seeks to improperly rewrite these
`1
`IPR2015-00846 Lenovo (United States) Inc v Personal Audio LLC Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00008-RC Document 194 Filed 02/20/15 Page 7 of 47 PageID #: 1367
`
`D. “Means responsive”
`terms
`
`terms or that the appearance of these terms in the preamble is not
`limiting.
`
`Plaintiff requests the Court adopt its previous constructions with
`two modifications: a) that the LocType limitation be removed from
`the claims (not just some as the Court previously found) and b) that
`“general purpose computer” be modified to “player client.”
`Defendants’ proposed constructions generally seek to include
`LocType as well as other limitations (i.e. additional steps) into the
`algorithmic structure where it was not construed before.
`Additionally, Defendants seek to require the sequencing file
`received by the device also be used to control playback.
`
`E. “Means for detecting”
`terms
`
`Plaintiff requests that the Court adopt its previous construction but
`modify “if-then-else” to “conditional programming construct.”
`Defendants seek to enter the previous constructions.
`
`F. New Terms: file /
`editing means / said
`editing means
`includes means for
`reordering….
`
`Defendant proposes these terms necessitate construction or are
`indefinite. Plaintiff argues they do not and are not.
`
`II.
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`Given the Court’s experience in matters of claim construction, Personal audio does not again
`
`recite the basic principles of claims construction. See Exh. C, Case No. 9:09-cv-00111-RC (the “Apple
`
`Action”), Dkt. No. 258 (Markman Order) at *2-4 (summarizing basic principles of claim construction).
`
`III.
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
`The invention described in the patents-in-suit relates to an audio player that is programmed to
`
`interact with a digital library to receive interactive program selections and selected program segments.
`
`A key feature of the invention is the ability to allow a user to interactively select programs from a
`
`program library and to then provide those programs to the user in the form of sequence files or
`
`playlists based on user preferences. The present invention thus contemplates a host-client system as
`
`depicted in Figure 1 of the ’076 patent that distributes to the user both a program selection and
`
`sequence file and the selected programs via the distribution algorithm depicted in Figure 2.
`
`The patent repeatedly and consistently defines the invention as one that provides interactive
`
`2
`IPR2015-00846 Lenovo (United States) Inc v Personal Audio LLC Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00008-RC Document 194 Filed 02/20/15 Page 8 of 47 PageID #: 1368
`
`selection of programming from a digital library. This key functionality is described multiple times in
`
`the patents-in-suit, including in the Background of the Invention:
`
`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. ’076 patent, 1:64-2:3 (emphasis added). 1
`***
`This invention relates to electronic information distribution systems and more
`particularly to a system for dynamically and interactively selecting and playing
`particular programs from a program library. ’076 patent, 1:6-9 (emphasis added).
`***
`According to a further feature of the invention, the audio program player plays
`program segments in an order determined by a session schedule which identifies an
`ordered sequence of program segments. The session schedule is [] created in the
`first instance by a server subsystem which develops and periodically transmits to
`the session schedule to the player. ’076 patent, 2:44-3:27(emphasis added).
`
`Therefore, the specification of the ’076 patent clearly states that providing interactive selection of
`
`programming from an online digital library is a key feature of the invention.2
`
`This interactive selection from a program library is achieved by a host computer that provides a
`
`playback sequence based upon user preferences (user selections and preference data). The playback
`
`sequence is provided in the form of a sequencing file that is downloaded from the host computer to the
`
`player client. The patents-in-suit describe this download process as follows:
`
`Download processing, as described in more detail later, extracts from the library 130
`data defining compressed program, advertising, and glue segments, and/or associated
`text program data, based on selections and preferences made by (or inferred for)
`the user as specified in the subscriber data and usage log database 134. . . . 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 as seen at 151 at the server.
`’076 patent, 6:62-8:44 (emphasis added). A purpose of the invention is providing the ability to
`
`“interactively locate and select desired programming from the available collection without the need for
`
`a visual display screen and using only simple selection controls.” ’076 patent, 1:64-2:3. To achieve
`
`1 The short form citation to the patents will be used throughout (i.e. Patent, [col]:[line(s)]).
`2 The ’076 and ’178 patents share the same specification. Thus, a citation to one patent relates equally to both.
`
`3
`IPR2015-00846 Lenovo (United States) Inc v Personal Audio LLC Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00008-RC Document 194 Filed 02/20/15 Page 9 of 47 PageID #: 1369
`
`this purpose, the patents-in-suit disclose a host-client architecture, wherein the function of providing
`
`playlists based upon user preferences or selections is performed on a host computer while the player
`
`functions (i.e., the display screen and selection controls) are maintained on a player client installed on
`
`a separate device. This architecture is illustrated in Figure 1, which depicts a host system 101 separate
`
`from a client device 103 having installed a player client:
`
`In this way, program selections based on user preferences can be made using the full suite of controls
`and hardware provided by a computer (i.e. keyboard, display screen, additional controls) while still
`maintaining simple control functionality for the player. ’076 patent, 2:6-10. Furthermore, the host
`computer of the digital library provides far more potential programming to a user than can be stored
`locally on the player.
`Critical to the functioning of the disclosed architecture and achieving the goal of interactive
`
`selection from a library is that the host computer generates the playlist based on user preferences and
`
`then transmits that list to the player. This functionality is depicted in the algorithm of Fig. 2:
`
`4
`IPR2015-00846 Lenovo (United States) Inc v Personal Audio LLC Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00008-RC Document 194 Filed 02/20/15 Page 10 of 47 PageID #: 1370
`
`Figure 2 illustrates the sequence of major
`events which are executed the program
`dissemination system contemplated by the
`invention…
`
`interested
`indicated at 203, an
`As
`subscriber invokes programming services
`by first supplying personal information. . .
`. Based on the information supplied by the
`user, the server then compiles one or more
`files for downloading to the subscriber at
`step 207 . . . 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 . . . .
`’076 patent, 8:9-44 (emphasis added).
`
`Accordingly, the present invention and claims contemplate (1) a player client (2) programmed to
`
`interactively select programs (3) from a program library (4) on a host computer (5) that are delivered to
`
`the user (6) in the form of a program sequence file (7) selected based on user preference.
`
`IV.
`CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
`A. “MEANS FOR RECEIVING / STORING” TERMS
`1. “Means for receiving and storing a file of data establishing a sequence in which
`said program segments are scheduled to be reproduced by said player…” (’076
`patent, claim 1)
`The differences in competing constructions are shown in App. A at pp. 4-5 (Ref. No. 6).
`
`The dispute concerning this claim term is centered on whether the means for receiving and
`
`storing a file establishing a sequence should be construed as a mere modem or other general purpose
`
`communication line, as contended by Defendants, or whether the claim should be construed as
`
`requiring the unique player programming in Fig. 2 (supra) that creates a communication link over the
`
`Internet with a host digital library that the specification clearly links to the function of receiving and
`
`5
`IPR2015-00846 Lenovo (United States) Inc v Personal Audio LLC Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00008-RC Document 194 Filed 02/20/15 Page 11 of 47 PageID #: 1371
`
`storing a sequencing file, as contended by Plaintiff. Since the specification clearly links the
`
`programming of Fig. 2 to the recited function and that this programming is necessary to implement the
`
`key feature of interactive selection from a library identified in the specification, the Court should not
`
`exclude the applicable programming from Fig. 2 from the corresponding structure.
`
`The Court previously held and the parties here agree that the “means for receiving and storing”
`
`element of claim 1 of the ’076 Patent (i.e., the second element) is a means-plus-function term governed
`
`by 35 USC § 112 ¶ 6. See Exh. C at *21. The first step in construing a means-plus-function limitation
`
`is to identify the function explicitly recited in the claim. See Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d
`
`1369, 1376 (Fed.Cir.2001). The next step is to identify the corresponding structure set forth in the
`
`written description that performs the recited function. Id.
`
`The function explicitly recited in the second element of claim 1 is: “receiving and storing a file
`
`of data establishing a sequence in which said program segments are scheduled to be reproduced by said
`
`player.”3 The parties disagree as to the structure that corresponds to this claimed function.
`
`The ’076 patent specification clearly links parts of steps 203 and 207 of the “program
`
`dissemination system” of the player depicted in Fig. 2 to the performance of the function claimed in
`
`element 2. The player contains programming in accordance with Fig. 2 that (1) establishes a
`
`communication link over the Internet with a digital library (’076 patent, 8:12-24) and (2) downloads
`
`over the Internet into local storage of the player a “recommended program sequence file” of selections
`
`based on user preference data. ‘076 patent, 8:24-44.
`
`The player program downloads and stores (i.e., receives and stores) from a host server a
`
`“recommended program sequence file” and selected programs at step 207:
`
`The download operation preferably occurs at a time established by the player
`which establishes a dial up connection via the SLIP/PPP serial connection 117 to the
`local Internet service provider 121 which provides an Internet connection to the host
`FTP server 125. The download file or files containing programming and advertising
`
`3 It should be noted that the program segments referred to here are the “selected audio program segments” in the preamble.
`See infra at 18 for discussion of this term.
`
`6
`IPR2015-00846 Lenovo (United States) Inc v Personal Audio LLC Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00008-RC Document 194 Filed 02/20/15 Page 12 of 47 PageID #: 1372
`
`segments as well as subscriber specific data are designate by filenames provided by
`the requesting client/player 103 and moved from storage unit 145 utilizing the FTP
`server 125 and the Internet connection into local storage at 107 in the client/player
`103.
`***
`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.
`
`’076 patent, 8:29-44 (emphasis added). In step 207, the control algorithm causes the download of the
`
`recommended program sequence file into “local storage,” thereby storing the received sequencing file.
`
`’076 patent, 8:24-44. Thus, Plaintiff’s proposed construction and support is as follows:
`
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`A player client that has
`been programmed to:
`
`Establish a
`communication link with
`one or more host servers
`of a digital audio
`library; and
`
`Download from one or
`more host servers using
`
`SPECIFICATION SUPPORT
`
`“FIG. 2 illustrates the sequence of major events which are executed the
`program dissemination system contemplated by the invention.”
`’076 patent, 8:9-11. See section (D)(7) for further description of a player
`client as performing the steps of Fig. 2.
`
`“The download operation preferably occurs at a time established by
`the player which establishes a dial up connection via the SLIP/PPP
`serial connection 117 to the local Internet service provider 121 which
`provides an Internet connection to the host FTP server 125.”
`’076 patent, 8:24-29.
`“As indicated at 203, an interested subscriber invokes programming
`services by first supplying personal information and initial
`programming preferences … Based on the information supplied by
`the user, the server then compiles one or more files for downloading to
`the subscriber at step 207 which include programming and advertising
`segments as well as additional data and utility programs needed by the
`player 103 to begin operation.”
`’076 patent, 8:12-24.
`This element is also depicted as first step 203 of the downloading and
`storing procedure illustrated in Fig. 2.
`“The download operation preferably occurs at a time established by
`the player which establishes a dial up connection via the SLIP/PPP
`
`7
`IPR2015-00846 Lenovo (United States) Inc v Personal Audio LLC Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00008-RC Document 194 Filed 02/20/15 Page 13 of 47 PageID #: 1373
`
`an Internet connection a
`“recommended program
`sequence file” into a
`local storage unit of the
`player/client.
`
`The “recommended
`program sequence file”
`is a file that “identifies
`the order in which
`downloaded program
`segments are to be
`played, with the initial
`selection and sequence
`
`serial connection 117 to the local Internet service provider 121 which
`provides an Internet connection to the host FTP server 125. The
`download file or files containing programming and advertising
`segments as well as subscriber specific data are designate by filenames
`provided by the requesting client/player 103 and moved from storage
`unit 145 utilizing the FTP server 125 and the Internet connection into
`local storage at 107 in the client/player 103.
`…
`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.”
`’076 patent, 8:24-44.
`“The download compilation file 145, though represented as a single file
`in FIG. 1, preferably takes the form of one or more subscriber and
`session specific files which contain the identification of separately
`stored sharable files. By way of example, the recommended order and
`the identification of the program files making up an individual playback
`session are stored in a session schedule file (to be described in detail in
`connection with FIG. 5) which contains program identifiers of the
`program segments to be played during an upcoming session. The player
`103 downloads the session schedule file and then issues download
`requests for those identified program segment files which are not
`already available in the player's local storage unit 107.”
`’076 patent, 7:1-13.
`“According to a further feature of the invention, the audio program
`player plays program segments in an order determined by a session
`schedule which identifies an ordered sequence of program segments.
`The session schedule is preferably created in the first instance by a
`server subsystem which develops and periodically transmits to the
`session schedule to the player.”
`’076 patent, 2:44-54.
`“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.”
`’076 patent, 8:39-44.
`
`8
`IPR2015-00846 Lenovo (United States) Inc v Personal Audio LLC Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00008-RC Document 194 Filed 02/20/15 Page 14 of 47 PageID #: 1374
`
`being established based
`on user preference
`data.”
`Download is defined as
`“to transfer a copy of a
`file from a remote
`computer to the
`requesting computer by
`means of a modem or
`network.”
`
`Exh. D, Microsoft Computer Dictionary 1996:
`“Download” is defined as “to transfer a copy of a file from a remote
`computer to the requesting computer by means of a modem or
`network.”
`Exh. E, Computer Dictionary 4th Ed. by Charles Sippl (1986):
`“Download” is defined as “to transfer a copy of a program, file, or other
`information from a remote database or other computer to the user’s own
`terminal over a communications line.”
`
`Furthermore, the “recommended program sequence file” clearly linked to the function of
`
`“receiving a file…establishing a sequence” is defined in the specification as one based on user
`
`preferences:
`
`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.”
`
`’076 patent, 8:39-44 (emphasis added). In this way, claim 1 embraces the key feature of allowing
`
`interactive selection from a digital library. Accordingly, the specification clearly links the algorithm in
`
`step 207 of Fig. 2 to “the receiving and storing of a file establishing a sequence” functions of claim 1.
`
`Moreover, the patent repeatedly recites interactive selection as a key feature of the invention, and
`
`teaches that interactive selection is achieved by generating a “recommended program sequence file”
`
`based on user preference and providing the sequence file to the player. See supra at 2-5.
`
`As will be discussed further in the context of claim 1 of the ’178 patent, the construction of
`
`“download” is well understood in the art to mean “to transfer a copy of a file from a remote computer
`
`to the requesting computer by means of a modem or network.” Exh. D, Microsoft Computer
`
`Dictionary 1997; Exh. E, Computer Dictionary 4th Ed. by Charles Sippl (1986). Although these two
`
`dictionaries from different authors are separated by 10 years, they have the same definition—thereby
`
`9
`IPR2015-00846 Lenovo (United States) Inc v Personal Audio LLC Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00008-RC Document 194 Filed 02/20/