`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`
`FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS INC., STREAMRAY INC., WMM, LLC, WMM
`HOLDINGS, LLC, MULTI MEDIA, LLC, AND DUODECAD IT SERVICES
`LUXEMBOURG S.À.R.L.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`WAG ACQUISITION, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 8,122,141
`
`Issue Date: February 21, 2012
`
`Title: STREAMING MEDIA BUFFERING SYSTEM
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. NATHANIEL POLISH IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 8,122,141
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 1 of 76
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Declaration of Dr. Nathaniel Polish Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,122,141 ................... v
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`A. Engagement ........................................................................................................... 1
`
`B. Background and Qualifications ........................................................................... 1
`
`C. Legal Standards for Patentability ......................................................................... 3
`
`i. Types of Claims ............................................................................................... 3
`
`ii. Invalidity by Anticipation or Obviousness ................................................... 3
`
`iii. Secondary or Objective Evidence of Nonobviousness .............................. 5
`
`iv. Basis of Opinion .............................................................................................. 5
`
`II. THE ‘141 PATENT ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`A. Effective Filing Date of the ‘141 Patent............................................................. 6
`
`B. The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................. 6
`
`C. Overview of the Claims of the ‘141 Patent ........................................................ 7
`
`D. The Claims of the ‘141 Patent ............................................................................. 8
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................... 11
`
`A. Claims 1, 10, and 24 – “rate more rapid than the rate at which said
`
`streaming media is played back by a user” ....................................................... 12
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 2 of 76
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`B. Claims 6 and 15 – “said server does not maintain a pointer into a buffer
`
`established within said server” ........................................................................... 12
`
`C. Claims 8, 17 and 21 – “streaming media from a live source” ........................ 13
`
`D. Claims 1 and 24 – “a sufficient number of media data elements in the media
`
`player for uninterrupted playback” ................................................................... 14
`
`E. Claim 19 – “format capable of being served to users by said server” .......... 14
`
`IV. STATE OF THE PRIOR ART ................................................................................. 15
`
`V. PRIOR ART REFERENCES ................................................................................... 19
`
`A. Hollfelder et al., “Transparent Integration of Continuous Media Support
`
`into a Multimedia DBMS” (“Hollfelder”) ........................................................ 19
`
`B. Su, Continuous Media Support for Multimedia Databases (“Su”) ........................... 19
`
`C.
`
`International Standard ISO/IEC 11172, “Information Technology –
`
`Coding of Moving Pictures and Associated Audio for Digital Storage Media
`
`at Up to About 1,5 Mbit/s” (“ISO-11172”) .................................................... 20
`
`D. U.S. Patent No. 6,757,796 to Hofmann (“Hofmann”) .................................. 20
`
`E. U.S. Patent No. 6,336,143 to Diedrich et al. (“Diedrich”) ............................. 21
`
`VI. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS 1-28 .............................................. 21
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Page 3 of 76
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, 14-16, 18-20, 24 and 27-28 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hollfelder in view of
`
`Su. .......................................................................................................................... 21
`
`B. Claims 3-4, 12-13, 22-23 and 25-26 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) over Hollfelder in view of Su and ISO-11172. .................................... 63
`
`C. Claims 8, 17 and 21 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Hollfelder in view of Su and Carmel. ............................................................... 65
`
`D. Claim 19 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Diedrich. .............. 67
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Page 4 of 76
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Nathaniel Polish Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,122,141
`
`
`
`
`I, Nathaniel Polish, do hereby declare and state, that all statements made herein
`
`are of my own knowledge, are true and that all statements made on information and
`
`belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or
`
`imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`Date: April 12, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nathaniel Polish
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`Page 5 of 76
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Engagement
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Petitioner to provide my opinions concerning the
`
`validity of claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 8,122,141 (the “’141 Patent”). I am being
`
`compensated for my time in preparing this declaration, but my compensation is not
`
`tied to the outcome of this matter and my compensation is not based on the
`
`substance of the opinions rendered here.
`
`B.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`2.
`
`I have a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Columbia University. I hold the
`
`following four degrees from Columbia University, spanning the years 1980 to 1993:
`
` Ph.D. in Computer Science, May 1993, Thesis: Mixed Distance Measures for
`
`the Optimization of Concatenative Vocabularies in Speech Synthesis;
`
` M.Phil. in Computer Science, December 1989;
`
` M.S. in Computer Science, December 1987; and
`
` B.A. in Physics, Columbia College, May 1984.
`
`3.
`
`I am president of Daedalus Technology Group, Inc., a computer technology
`
`development firm that I co-founded over twenty-five years ago. My primary business
`
`activity is the development of computer-related products, including small handheld
`
`electronic devices and testers, video and messaging systems, as well as large-scale
`
`distributed systems.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 6 of 76
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`4.
`
`I have experience in the technical areas of the ’141 Patent. For example, in the
`
`early 1980’s, I developed an interactive system using computer controlled video disks
`
`and touch screens. From 1983-1987, I developed high-speed drivers for several
`
`graphical devices and evaluated their applicability for interactive uses. By 1994, I had
`
`developed a proof-of-concept system to compress images of checks to very small file
`
`size.
`
`5.
`
`I have further written an article regarding the technical areas of the ‘141 Patent,
`
`entitled “The Burstware Family of Protocols.”
`
`6.
`
`I am a named inventor on seven United States patents, including U.S Patent
`
`Number 5,963,202 issued on October 5, 1999 and entitled, “System and Method for
`
`Distributing and Managing Digital Video Information in a Video Distribution
`
`Network.”
`
`7.
`
`I am further a member of several professional societies, including the Institute
`
`of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the Association for Computing
`
`Machinery (ACM). Ex. 1013 of the Petition is a true and correct copy of my
`
`Curriculum Vitae describing my background and experience.
`
`8.
`
`I have also performed services in patent disputes as an independent technical
`
`expert and consultant and as an expert witness on computer, video, and software-
`
`related cases.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 7 of 76
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`C.
`
`Legal Standards for Patentability
`
`i. Types of Claims
`
`9.
`
`I understand that there are two types of U.S. patent claims: 1) independent
`
`claims and 2) dependent claims. I understand that independent claims only include
`
`the aspects stated in the independent claim. I further understand that dependent
`
`claims include the aspects stated in that dependent claim, plus all the aspects stated in
`
`the other claim(s) from which that dependent claim depends.
`
`ii. Invalidity by Anticipation or Obviousness
`
`10.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious. I understand
`
`that anticipation of a claim requires that every element of a claim is disclosed
`
`expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim. With
`
`regard to inherency, I understand that anticipation by inherency requires that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art would have recognized that the missing descriptive
`
`matter is necessarily present in the subject matter described in the reference.
`
`11.
`
`I further understand that obviousness of a claim requires that the claim be
`
`obvious from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, at the
`
`time the invention was made. In analyzing obviousness, I understand that it is
`
`important to understand the scope of the claims, the level of skill in the relevant art,
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the
`
`claims, and any secondary considerations.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 8 of 76
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`12.
`
`I also understand that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
`
`devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
`
`beyond his or her skill. For instance, I understand that the simple substitution of one
`
`known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece
`
`of prior art ready for the improvement is obvious.
`
`13.
`
`In addition, I understand that the United States Supreme Court has said that
`
`“[t]he use of one material instead of another in constructing a known machine is, in
`
`most cases, so obviously a matter of mere mechanical judgment, and not of invention,
`
`unless some new and useful result, an increase of efficiency, or a decided saving in the
`
`operation, is clearly attained.” Hicks v. Kelsey, 85 U.S. 670, 673 (1873). Moreover, to
`
`avoid obviousness, I understand that such a new and useful result, increase of
`
`efficiency, or decided saving in the operation must be unpredictable. KSR Int'l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (U.S. 2007) (“when a patent claims a structure already
`
`known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for
`
`another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable
`
`result.”).
`
`14. There may also be a specific “teaching, suggestion or motivation” to combine
`
`any first prior art reference with a second prior art reference. Such a “teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation” to combine the first prior art reference with the second
`
`prior art reference can be explicit or implicit.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 76
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`15.
`
`I understand that there are several sources for a “teaching, suggestion or
`
`motivation” to combine references: the nature of the problem to be solved, the
`
`teachings of the prior art, and the knowledge of the persons of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. In addition, market forces or other design incentives may be what produced a
`
`change, rather than true inventiveness. I also know that the application of common
`
`sense and ordinary skill to solve a problem is not patentable.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that when considering invalidity, each claim must be considered
`
`individually.
`
`iii. Secondary or Objective Evidence of Nonobviousness
`
`17.
`
`I understand that secondary (or objective) considerations are relevant to the
`
`determination of whether a claim is obvious. Such secondary (or objective)
`
`considerations can include evidence of commercial success caused by an invention,
`
`evidence of a long-felt need that was solved by an invention, evidence that others
`
`copied an invention, or evidence that an invention achieved a surprising result. I
`
`understand that such evidence must have a nexus, or causal relationship to the
`
`elements of a claim, in order to be relevant to the obviousness or non-obviousness of
`
`the claim. I am unaware of any such secondary considerations in relation to the
`
`claims of the ‘141 Patent.
`
`iv. Basis of Opinion
`
`18.
`
`In forming my opinion, I have relied on the ‘141 Patent claims, ‘141
`
`prosecution history, and disclosure, the prior art exhibits to the Petition for the IPR
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 10 of 76
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`of the ‘141 Patent, and my relevant work experience and belief as to the knowledge of
`
`the person of ordinary skill in the relevant art in the 2000 timeframe.
`
`II. THE ‘141 PATENT
`
`A. Effective Filing Date of the ‘141 Patent
`
`19. The ‘141 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 12/800,152, filed on
`
`May 10, 2010. The ‘152 application claims priority to Provisional Application No.
`
`60/231,997, filed on September 12, 2000. I understand that this means the effective
`
`filing date of the claims of the ‘141 Patent is no earlier than September 12, 2000.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that Claims 1, 10, 19 and 24 are the independent claims in the
`
`‘141 Patent. I also understand that the remaining claims in the ‘141 Patent are
`
`dependent on one of those independent claims.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a dependent claim incorporates all of the requirements of the
`
`independent claim from which it depends. Thus, these dependent claims cannot have
`
`an effective date earlier than that of their respective independent claims.
`
`22.
`
`I therefore have used September 12, 2000 as the earliest effective filing date of
`
`the ‘141 Patent in my analysis.
`
`B.
`
`The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`23.
`
`I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ‘141 Patent
`
`in September 2000 would be a person with a good working knowledge of computer
`
`science and computer engineering, obtained through both education and practical
`
`experience. The technology requires relevant academic and/or professional training,
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 11 of 76
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`but is not so complex that it would strictly require an advanced postgraduate degree.
`
`Accordingly, I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have would have
`
`had a B.S. degree in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree)
`
`and two years of experience in networking or streaming media, or a M.S. in computer
`
`science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree). These descriptions are
`
`approximate, and a higher level of education or specific skill might make up for less
`
`experience, and vice-versa.
`
`24.
`
`I believe that I would qualify as at least a person of ordinary skill in the art, and
`
`that I have a sufficient level of knowledge, experience and education to provide an
`
`expert opinion in the field of the ‘141 Patent.
`
`25. My opinions were formed based on the perspective of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the priority date of the ‘141 Patent and for some time before
`
`then, unless otherwise specifically indicated. This is true even if my statements are in
`
`the present tense.
`
`C. Overview of the Claims of the ‘141 Patent
`
`26. The ‘141 Patent is directed to methods and systems for buffering streaming
`
`media data over the Internet. Ex. 1001, ‘141 Patent at 1:30-33.
`
`27. The ‘141 Patent admits that sending audio and video files via a network was
`
`known in the art. Ex. 1001, ‘141 Patent at 4:1-2. The ‘141 Patent also admits that it
`
`was known for media data stored in a server to be sent over networks to a client
`
`buffer to assure a continuous stream of audio and video. Id. at 2:35-40. The ‘141
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 12 of 76
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`Patent further admits that it was known to use a pre-buffering technique so that the
`
`audio and video can be played with a minimum of dropouts, and that it was known to
`
`transmit audio and video at the rate it is to be played back on the associated media
`
`player. Id. at 2:56-63. Indeed, the “invention presumes the existence of a data
`
`communications transport mechanism, such as the TCP protocol, for the reliable
`
`delivery of data in an ordered sequence from the source of the media data to the
`
`server, or from the server to the media player software of the user computer. Thus,
`
`the delivery of data in the proper sequence is outside the scope of this invention.” Id.
`
`at 5:5-11. Finally, the patent notes the existence of “two types of encoding schemes
`
`…‘Variable Bit Rate’—VBR, and ‘Constant Bit Rate’—CBR . . . [where] [t]he standard
`
`encoding scheme used for streaming media is CBR . . . .” Id. at 5:22-35.
`
`D. The Claims of the ‘141 Patent
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the ‘141 Patent includes four independent claims subject to
`
`the present Petition:
`
`1[a]. A method for distributing streaming media via a data communications
`
`medium such as the Internet to at least one user system of at least one user
`
`
`1[b]. the streaming media comprising a plurality of sequential media data
`elements for a digitally encoded audio or video program, comprising:
`
`
`1[c]. providing a server programmed to receive requests from the user system
`for media data elements corresponding to specified serial identifiers and
`
`1[d]. to send media data elements to the user system responsive to said
`requests, at a rate more rapid than the rate at which said streaming media is played
`back by a user; and
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 13 of 76
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`
`
`1[e]. providing a machine-readable medium accessible to said user, on which
`there has been recorded software for implementing a media player for receiving and
`playing the streaming media on said user system,
`
`1[f]. said software being programmed to cause the media player to maintain a
`record of the identifier of the last data element that has been received; and
`
`1[g]. to transmit requests to the server to send one or more data elements,
`specifying the identifiers of the data elements,
`
`1[h]. as said media player requires in order to maintain a sufficient number of
`media data elements in the media player for uninterrupted playback.
`
`10[a]. A server for distributing streaming media via a data communications
`medium such as the Internet to at least one user system of at least one user,
`
`10[b]. the streaming media comprising a plurality of sequential media data
`elements for a digitally encoded audio or video program,
`
`10[c]. said user system being assumed to have a media player for receiving and
`playing the streaming media on said user system
`
`10[d]. which is operable to obtain media data elements from said server by
`transmitting requests to said server to send one or more specified media data
`elements, said server comprising:
`
`10[e]. at least one data storage device, memory for storing machine-readable
`executable routines and for providing a working memory area for routines executing
`on the server, a central processing unit for executing the machine-readable executable
`routines, an operating system, at least one connection to the communications
`medium, and a communications system providing a set of communications protocols
`for communicating through said at least one connection;
`
`10[f]. a machine-readable, executable routine containing instructions to cause
`the server to assign serial identifiers to the sequential media data elements comprising
`the program;
`
`10[g]. a machine-readable, executable routine containing instructions to cause
`the server to receive requests from the user system for one or more media data
`elements specifying the identifiers of the requested data elements; and
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 14 of 76
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`
`10[h]. a machine-readable, executable routine containing instructions to cause
`the server to send media data elements to the user system responsive to said requests,
`at a rate more rapid than the rate at which said streaming media is played back by a
`user.
`
`
`19. A non-transitory machine-readable medium on which there has been
`recorded a computer program for use in operating a computer to prepare streaming
`media content for transmission by a server wherein said server responds to user
`requests for media data elements identified by a serial identifier, said program
`recorded on said non-transitory machine readable medium comprising a routine to
`store and serially identify sequential data elements comprising said streaming media
`content, in a format capable of being served to users by said server.
`
`24[a]. A non-transitory machine-readable medium on which there has been
`recorded a computer program for use in operating a media player for receiving and
`playing streaming media comprising a plurality of sequential media data elements, said
`elements being available on request by said player via a data communications medium
`such as the Internet, from a server assumed to be capable of sending streaming media
`elements at a rate more rapid than the rate at which said streaming media is played
`back by a user, each said data element having a serial identifier, said program recorded
`on said machine readable medium comprising:
`
`24[b]. a routine that maintains a record of the identifier of the last sequential
`media data element that has been received by said player;
`
`24[c]. a routine that requests transmission of the next sequential media data
`elements following said last sequential media data element, as said media player
`requires in order to maintain a sufficient number of media data elements in the media
`player for uninterrupted playback.
`
`
`29. These four independent claims are closely related and substantially similar.
`
`Claim 1 describes the method of streaming media data from a server to a client buffer
`
`for playback to a user, wherein the client requests specified media data elements from
`
`the server, which sends data at a rate faster than the playback. Claim 10 discloses the
`
`server in the client-server architecture programmed with machine-readable
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 15 of 76
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`instructions to apply the method described in Claim 1, and specifies that it contains a
`
`storage device, memory, CPU, OS, connection to the medium and a communications
`
`system. Claim 19 discloses a computer program which prepares streaming media
`
`content for transmission according to the method of Claim 1. Finally, Claim 24
`
`discloses a media player for receiving and playing the streaming media received from
`
`the server according to the method of Claim 1. Claims 10, 19 and 24 only disclose
`
`common hardware and software constituents of the client-server architecture
`
`described in Claim 1, without adding any procedural limitations to its method for
`
`streaming media distribution and buffering.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`30.
`
`I understand that in an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”), a claim receives the
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). For purposes of the present IPR only, the claim
`
`terms of the ‘839 Patent are presumed to take on their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning that the term would have to one of ordinary skill in the art, unless specifically
`
`discussed below.
`
`31.
`
`I am currently unaware of any plausible alternative claim constructions or any
`
`claim construction dispute that would affect my opinions as to the invalidity of claims
`
`of the ‘141 Patent. However, I may revise my opinions should the Patent Owner or
`
`the Board suggest or adopt alternative constructions for any of the claim terms.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 16 of 76
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`A.
`
`Claims 1, 10, and 24 – “rate more rapid than the rate at which said
`
`streaming media is played back by a user”
`
`32. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have understood
`
`“rate more rapid than the rate at which said streaming media is played back by a user”
`
`to mean “a transmission rate faster than the rate at which the media is played by the
`
`user.” This is supported in the specification: “Connections from the server 12
`
`through the Internet 10 commonly are much faster than the data rate required for
`
`audio or video playback… Since the connection from the Internet to the user is faster
`
`than that required for media playback, audio/video data is transmitted form the server
`
`faster than it is played out by the user system, thus building up audio/video data in
`
`the user buffer.” ‘141 Patent at 11:17-30, 11:55-60. The description in the patent
`
`specification indicates that the “rate more rapid” to the rate of transmission from the
`
`server, which is greater than the rate at which the media player presents the streaming
`
`multimedia data to the user. The specification thus illustrates the common meaning
`
`that a person of ordinary skill would have ascribed to this term.
`
`B.
`
`Claims 6 and 15 – “said server does not maintain a pointer into a
`
`buffer established within said server”
`
`33. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the
`
`negative limitation “does not maintain a pointer into a buffer,” because the written
`
`description does not sufficiently explain this language. The only mention of this
`
`phrase in the specification describes it as an equivalent to the media player
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 17 of 76
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`maintaining a record of the identifier, which incorporates the same language already
`
`stated in Claim 1: “The server buffer manager does not maintain a pointer into the
`
`server buffer for each user. Instead, the media player buffer manager in the user
`
`computer maintains a record of the serial number of the last data element that has
`
`been received. Via the use of standard data communications protocol techniques
`
`such as TCP, the user computer transmits a request to the server to send one or more
`
`data elements, specifying the serial numbers of the data elements.” ‘141 Patent at
`
`8:38-42. This limited description does not provide enough information to precisely
`
`define this negative limitation – it simply contrasts the lack of a pointer with the
`
`media player maintaining a record. Thus, to the extent this ambiguous phrase can be
`
`construed at all, the broadest reasonable construction is that the “media player
`
`maintains a record of the identifier.”
`
`C.
`
`Claims 8, 17 and 21 – “streaming media from a live source”
`
`34. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have
`
`understood “streaming media from a live source” to mean “media that originated
`
`from a broadcast.” This understanding is consistent with the usage of this term in the
`
`‘141 Patent specification. The ‘141 Patent illustrates media from a “live source” in
`
`Fig. 1 by depicting a person speaking into a microphone to generate the data being
`
`stored in the server. ‘141 Patent at Fig. 1, 3:33-36. However, the patent specification
`
`also states that media data elements originating from a recording of a live broadcast
`
`would satisfy this limitation. ‘141 Patent at 10:60-65. For example, the specification
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 18 of 76
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`describes “playing a CD” as an example of a “live source.” Id. Thus, this limitation
`
`cannot exclude media read from a storage medium, as this would improperly exclude
`
`the embodiment of a live source discussed in the specification. One of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of invention would therefore understand that this phrase
`
`encompasses media stored as a recording of a live broadcast.
`
`D. Claims 1 and 24 – “a sufficient number of media data elements in
`
`the media player for uninterrupted playback”
`
`35. One of ordinary skill in the art would find difficulty in defining this limitation.
`
`The specification of the ‘141 Patent does not provide a reference for what amount of
`
`streaming media is “sufficient” to continuously playing back the streaming media data
`
`elements. The buffer is filled as playback continues by each media data element
`
`received to the buffer regardless of whether the level of the buffer ever increases or
`
`decreases. Thus, this phrase does not impart any limit to the amount or rate that
`
`streaming data elements other than streaming media data elements must continue to
`
`be received so that the next element to be played is available when needed.
`
`Accordingly, to the extent this phrase could mean anything to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, it would mean that “the specified amount of streaming media data elements
`
`being any non-zero amount.”
`
`E. Claim 19 – “format capable of being served to users by said server”
`
`36. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would find
`
`difficulty defining this limitation. The ‘141 Patent specification is silent as to what
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 19 of 76
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`“formats” would be capable or incapable of being served to the user. The
`
`specification merely states that there may be a “means for formatting media data
`
`according to the requirements of [the] buffer,” without giving any description or
`
`example of an acceptable format. The prosecution history does not contain any
`
`further description of the term.
`
`37.
`
`In absence of further detail from the written description, one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would not have any way to determine whether a particular data format is
`
`within the scope of the claims. The ‘141 Patent offers no guidance as to the
`
`characteristics that make a format “capable of being served to users,” nor does it
`
`provide any example of a format which would be “incapable” of being served to
`
`users. Accordingly, this term is indefinite.
`
`IV. STATE OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`38.
`
`Since at least the beginning of the 1990’s, digital transmission technologies had
`
`been introduced for digital audio broadcasting and digital video broadcasting. Ex.
`
`1009, Kozamernik at pp. 1-2. The Internet was recognized as a de facto worldwide
`
`network important for broadcasting activities having achieved more than 50%
`
`penetration in five major American cities and 50 million users in four years. Id. at pp.
`
`3, 5. It was recognized that in contrast to conventional broadcasting, the Internet
`
`allowed the audience to interact with the originator and shape the content that is
`
`delivered. Id. at p. 5. Several protocols, including Real Time Streaming Protocol
`
`(“RTSP”) – a popular application-level protocol known to enable controlled on-
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 20 of 76
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`demand delivery of real-time audio and video stream – were in use for providing real-
`
`time services via the Internet. Id. at p. 13.
`
`39. While “download-first-and-then-play” technology was considered acceptable
`
`for short program clips, “streaming” technology, which allowed for immediate playback,
`
`was preferred for online radio listening and watching video clips. Id. at p. 6. During
`
`media streaming, a media player, such as RealPlayerTM, read the media file stream as it
`
`was arriving from the network and began playing it before the rest of the file arrived. Id. In
`
`order to make the playback smooth, the player used a process of buffering. Id. As
`
`the player played out the file, it continued to collect packets in reserve so that if there
`
`were minor delays in receiving the packets, playback was still continuous. Id.
`
`40. Buffering was commonly known in the context of media streaming over the
`
`Internet. Transmission over the Internet may not be fully reliable and may suffer
`
`from delay jitter. Id. at pp. 12-13. Delay jitter is the variance in delay from end to end
`
`of one packet as compared to the subsequent packet. Id. Buffering was known to
`
`smooth out jitter to