Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BISCOTTI INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,144,182
`Issued: March 27, 2012
`Filed: September 16, 2009
`Inventors: Matthew B. Shoemake and Nadeem Ahmed
`Title:
`REAL TIME VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
`____________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2014-01457
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. HENRY HOUH REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO.
`8,144,182
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Engagement ........................................................................................... 1
`B.
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................. 1
`C.
`Compensation and Prior Testimony ...................................................... 4
`D.
`Information Considered ......................................................................... 5
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY .......................................... 6
`II.
`A. Anticipation ........................................................................................... 7
`B.
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 9
`III. THE ’182 PATENT ....................................................................................... 14
`A.
`Effective Filing Date of the ‘182 Patent ............................................. 14
`A.
`Claims of the ‘182 Patent .................................................................... 15
`B.
`Terms Used in the ‘182 Patent Claims ................................................ 30
`1. “set-top box” .................................................................................30
`2. “transmitting the series of data packets over a private
`content delivery network” .............................................................31
`3. “audio watermark” ........................................................................34
`4. “video chat application” (claim 21) ..............................................35
`C.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 36
`IV. COMPARISON OF PRIOR ART TO THE ‘182 PATENT ......................... 36
`A. U.S. Patent 7,907,164 (Ex. 1006) ........................................................ 36
`1. Overview of Kenoyer ....................................................................38
`2. Comparison of Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
`Kenoyer .........................................................................................83
`
`18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34,
`35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 50, 52, 53, 69, 70,
`71, 72, 73, 74, 82, 83, 84, 85, and 86 of the ’182 Patent to
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Engagement
`I have been retained by counsel for Microsoft Corporation
`
`(“Microsoft”) as an expert witness in the above-captioned proceeding. I have been
`
`asked to provide my opinion about the state of the art of the technology described
`
`in U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182 (“the ’182 patent”) (Exhibit 1001) and on the
`
`patentability of the claims of this patent. The following is my written report on
`
`these topics.
`
`B.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`My Curriculum Vitae is submitted herewith as Exhibit 1004.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
`
`from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1998. I also received a Master
`
`of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1991, a
`
`Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in
`
`1990, and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Physics in 1989.
`
`4.
`
`As further indicated in my C.V., I have worked in the electrical
`
`engineering and computer science fields, including web search and web server
`
`development, on several occasions. As part of my doctoral research at MIT from
`
`1991-1998, I worked as a research assistant in the Telemedia Network Systems
`
`(TNS) group at the Laboratory for Computer Science. The TNS group built a high
`
`speed gigabit network and applications which ran over the network, such as remote
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`video capture, processing, segmentation and search on computer terminals. In
`
`addition to helping design the core network components, designing and building
`
`the high speed links, and designing and writing the device drivers for the interface
`
`cards, I also set up the group’s web server, which at the time was one of the first
`
`several hundred web servers in existence and went on to provide what was likely
`
`one of the first live Internet video initiated from a web site. I co-authored papers
`
`on our web server video system and on database-backed web sites for which I
`
`attended the first World Wide Web conference to present.
`
`5.
`
`I authored or co-authored twelve papers and conference presentations
`
`on our group’s research. I also co-edited the final report of the gigabit networking
`
`research effort with the Professor (David Tennenhouse) and Senior Research
`
`Scientist of the group (David Clark), who is generally considered to be one of the
`
`fathers of the Internet Protocol.
`
`6.
`
`From 1997 to 1999, I was a Senior Scientist and Engineer at NBX
`
`Corporation, a start-up that made business telephone systems that streamed
`
`packetized audio over data networks instead of using traditional phone lines. NBX
`
`was later acquired by 3Com Corporation, and the phone system is still available
`
`and being used at tens of thousands of businesses or more. As part of my work at
`
`NBX, I designed the core audio reconstruction algorithms for the telephones, as
`
`well as the packet transmission algorithms. I also designed and validated the core
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`packet transport protocol used by the phone system. The protocol is used millions
`
`of times daily currently. Two of the company founders and I received US Patent
`
`No. 6,697,963 titled “Telecommunication method for ensuring on-time delivery of
`
`packets containing time sensitive data,” for some of the work I did there.
`
`7.
`
`Starting in 2001, I was an architect for the next generation of web
`
`testing product by Empirix known as e-Test Suite. e-Test Suite is now owned by
`
`Oracle Corporation. e-Test provided functional and load testing for web sites. e-
`
`Test emulated a user's interaction with a web site and provided web developers
`
`with a method of creating various scripts and providing both functional testing
`
`(e.g., did the web site provide the correct response) and load testing (e.g., could the
`
`web site handle 5000 users on its web site simultaneously). Among Empirix’s
`
`customers was H&R Block, who used e-Test Suite to test the tax filing
`
`functionality of their web site as whether the web site could handle a large
`
`expected load prior to the filing deadline.
`
`8.
`
`Around 2006, I helped create a search engine for audio and video
`
`which could be searched based on spoken word content. Our system used speech
`
`recognition and natural language processing to create a search index of audio and
`
`video files posted publicly on the Internet. Today, at RAMP Inc., the project has
`
`grown to a product that is used by media outlets such as ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox,
`
`ESPN, and Reuters.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`9.
`
`Around 2008-2009, while I was Chief Technology Officer at Eons, a
`
`venture backed company founded by Jeff Taylor, who also founded the hiring web
`
`site Monster.com, Eons launched an advertising network. Eons built a network of
`
`sites on which advertisements could be placed, fulfilled client advertisement
`
`purchases, and tracked delivery of clients’ advertisements. In addition, we utilized
`
`the Solr search platform in order to index the millions of items of content added by
`
`Eons members, in order to make them searchable.
`
`10.
`
`I am the author of several publications devoted to a wide variety of
`
`technologies in the fields of electrical engineering and computer science. These
`
`publications are listed on my C.V. (Ex. 1004).
`
`C. Compensation and Prior Testimony
`I am being compensated at a rate of $550 per hour for my study and
`
`11.
`
`testimony in this matter. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary
`
`expenses associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My
`
`compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my
`
`testimony.
`
`12.
`
`I have testified in Federal District Court as an expert witness three
`
`times. Most recently, I testified in the Two-Way Media LLC v. AT&T Inc. matter in
`
`the Western District of Texas. I have also testified in the Verizon v. Vonage and
`
`Verizon v. Cox matters, both in the Eastern District of Virginia. I also testified at
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`the hearing in In the matter of Certain digital media devices, including televisions,
`
`Blu-ray disc players, home theater systems, tablets and mobile phones, components
`
`thereof and associated software, Investigation No. 337-TA-882, U.S. International
`
`Trade Commission, and filed expert reports and was deposed. I have provided
`
`deposition testimony for other cases filed in Federal District Court as well. I also
`
`have testified in Federal District Court once as a fact witness.
`
`13.
`
`In addition, I have filed declarations in Microsoft v. B.E. Technology,
`
`LLC (IPR2014-00039, IPR2014-00040), Apple Inc. v. Evolutionary Intelligence,
`
`LLC (IPR2014-00086), Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. v. Evolutionary Intelligence,
`
`LLC, Neulion Inc. v. Patent Owner, Cisco Systems, Inc. v. AIP Acquisition LLC,
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Constellation Technologies LLC, and Samsung Electronics
`
`Co., LTD et al v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`
`D.
`
`Information Considered
`
`14.
`
`My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have considered the materials I identify in this report and those
`
`listed in Appendix A.
`
`15.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond
`
`to arguments raised by the Patent Owner. I may also consider additional
`
`documents and information in forming any necessary opinions — including
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`16.
`
`My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This report
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`17.
`
`claims of the ’182 patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that have
`
`been explained to me.
`
`18.
`
`First, I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be
`
`found patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from what
`
`was known before the invention was made.
`
`19.
`
`I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether an
`
`invention is new and not obvious is generally referred to as “prior art” and
`
`generally includes patents and printed publications (e.g., books, journal
`
`publications, articles on websites, product manuals, etc.).
`
`20.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding Microsoft has the burden of
`
`proving that the claims of the ’182 patent are anticipated by or obvious from the
`
`prior art by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a preponderance
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`of the evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more likely true than it
`
`is not.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claims
`
`after being construed in this manner are then to be compared to the information in
`
`the prior art.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the information that may be
`
`evaluated is limited to patents and printed publications. My analysis below
`
`compares the claims to patents and printed publications that are prior art to the
`
`claims.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the
`
`claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. My understanding of the two legal standards is
`
`set forth below.
`
`A. Anticipation
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`24.
`
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art.
`
`25.
`
`I have applied these standards in my evaluation of whether claims 1,
`
`4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 50, 52, 53, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73,
`
`74, 82, 83, 84, 85, and 86 of the ’182 patent would have been anticipated by the
`
`prior art.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that the “prior art” includes patents and printed
`
`publications that existed before the earliest filing date (the “effective filing date”)
`
`of the claim in the patent. I also understand that a patent will be prior art if it was
`
`filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, while a printed
`
`publication will be prior art if it was publicly available before that date.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior
`
`art, each and every requirement of the claim must be found, expressly or
`
`inherently, in a single prior art reference as recited in the claim. I understand that
`
`claim limitations that are not expressly described in a prior art reference may still
`
`be there if they are “inherent” to the thing or process being described in the prior
`
`art. For example, an indication in a prior art reference that a particular process
`
`complies with a published standard would indicate that the process must inherently
`
`perform certain steps or use certain data structures that are necessary to comply
`
`with the published standard.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that if a reference incorporates other documents by
`
`reference, the incorporating reference and the incorporated reference(s) should be
`
`treated as a single prior art reference for purposes of analyzing anticipation.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`29.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to consider evidence other than the
`
`information in a particular prior art document to determine if a feature is
`
`necessarily present in or inherently described by that reference.
`
`B. Obviousness
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`
`30.
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time
`
`the invention was made.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined in the patent
`
`statute (35 U.S.C. § 103(a)) as follows:
`
`A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
`disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a claim in a patent is obvious. I have applied these standards in my
`
`evaluation of whether the asserted claims of the ’182 patent would have been
`
`considered obvious in September 2008.
`
`33.
`
`
`
`I understand that to find a claim in a patent obvious, one must make
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`certain findings regarding the claimed invention and the prior art. Specifically, I
`
`understand that the obviousness question requires consideration of four factors
`
`(although not necessarily in the following order):
`
`• The scope and content of the prior art;
`• The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`• The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`• Whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness
`may be present in any particular case.
` In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be
`
`34.
`
`done in hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art as of the effective filing date of the patent claim.
`
`35.
`
`I understand the objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may include: commercial success of products covered by the patent
`
`claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by others to make the
`
`invention; copying of the invention by others in the field; unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by those in the field; the taking
`
`of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by experts and those
`
`skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and the patentee proceeded
`
`contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art. I also understand that any of this
`
`evidence must be specifically connected to the invention rather than being
`
`associated with the prior art or with marketing or other efforts to promote an
`
`invention. I am not presently aware of any evidence of “objective factors”
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`suggesting the claimed methods are not obvious, and reserve my right to address
`
`any such evidence if it is identified in the future.
`
`36.
`
`I understand 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 that an example of a solution in one field of endeavor may make
`
`that solution obvious in another related field. I also understand that market
`
`demands or design considerations may prompt variations of a prior art system or
`
`process, either in the same field or a different one, and that these variations will
`
`ordinarily be considered obvious variations of what has been described in the prior
`
`art.
`
`37.
`
`I also understand that if a person of ordinary skill can implement a
`
`predictable variation, that variation would have been considered obvious. I
`
`understand that for similar reasons, 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 that technique to improve the other
`
`device would have been obvious unless its actual application yields unexpected
`
`results or challenges in implementation.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, but
`
`instead can take account of the “ordinary innovation” and experimentation that
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`does no more than yield predictable results, which are inferences and creative steps
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that sometimes it will be necessary to look to interrelated
`
`teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
`
`community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. I understand that all these
`
`issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
`
`formalistic conception of the words “teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” I
`
`understand that in 2007, the Supreme Court issued its decision in KSR Int'l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex, Inc. where the Court rejected the previous requirement of a “teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine” known elements of prior art for purposes of
`
`an obviousness analysis as a precondition for finding obviousness. It is my
`
`understanding that KSR confirms that any motivation that would have been known
`
`to a person of skill in the art, including common sense, or derived from the nature
`
`of the problem to be solved, is sufficient to explain why references would have
`
`been combined.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a
`
`problem will not be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`same problem. I understand that under the KSR standard, steps suggested by
`
`common sense are important and should be considered. Common sense teaches
`
`that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond the particular application being
`
`described in a reference, that if something can be done once it is obvious to do it
`
`multiple times, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. As such, the prior art
`
`considered can be directed to any need or problem known in the field of endeavor
`
`in September 2008 and 2009 (depending on whether the provisional date provides
`
`disclosure for the claims) and can provide a reason for combining the elements of
`
`the prior art in the manner claimed. In other words, the prior art does not need to
`
`be directed towards solving the same problem that is addressed in the patent.
`
`Further, the individual prior art references themselves need not all be directed
`
`towards solving the same problem.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that an invention that might be considered an obvious
`
`variation or modification of the prior art may be considered non-obvious if one or
`
`more prior art references discourages or lead away from the line of inquiry
`
`disclosed in the reference(s). A reference does not “teach away” from an invention
`
`simply because the reference suggests that another embodiment of the invention is
`
`better or preferred. My understanding of the doctrine of teaching away requires a
`
`clear indication that the combination should not be attempted (e.g., because it
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`would not work or explicit statements saying the combination should not be made).
`
`43.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity.
`
`44.
`
`I further understand that in many fields, it may be that there is little
`
`discussion of obvious techniques or combination, and it often may be the case that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive design
`
`trends. When there is such a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
`
`and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of
`
`ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical
`
`grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
`
`innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a
`
`combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious. The fact that a
`
`particular combination of prior art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that
`
`the combination was obvious even if no one attempted the combination. If the
`
`combination was obvious to try (regardless of whether it was actually tried) or
`
`leads to anticipated success, then it is likely the result of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense rather than innovation.
`
`III. THE ’182 PATENT
`A. Effective Filing Date of the ‘182 Patent
`The ‘182 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 12/561,165, with a
`
`45.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`filing date of September 16, 2009. The ‘165 application claims priority to
`
`Provisional Application No. 61/097,379, filed on September 16, 2008. At least a
`
`number of the claims of the ‘182 patent are not supported by the provisional
`
`application. But affording the ‘182 patent the benefit of the provisional filing date
`
`would not affect the patentability issues I have analyzed. For the purpose of this
`
`Petition, I am assuming that the priority date for the ‘182 patent is September 16,
`
`2008.
`
`A. Claims of the ‘182 Patent
`This declaration relates to claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
`
`46.
`
`18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,
`
`41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 50, 52, 53, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 82, 83, 84, 85, and 86. These
`
`claims read as follows:
`
`1. A system for real-time, high-definition video communication, the
`system comprising:
`
`a first video communication device; and
`
`a second video communication device in communication with the first
`video communication device over the Internet;
`
`wherein the first video communication device comprises:
`
`(a) a high-definition multimedia ("HDMI") input interface configured
`to receive high-definition audiovisual input from a set-top box;
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`(b) an HDMI output interface configured to provide high-definition
`audiovisual output for display on a high-definition television;
`
`(c) a speaker to provide audible output;
`
`(d) a wireless network interface in communication with a wireless
`local area network to provide communication with the second video
`communication device over the Internet;
`
`(e) one or more microphones to capture audio input from a user of the
`first video communication device;
`
`(f) a high-definition video camera to capture a video stream of the
`user;
`
`(g) at least one processor; and
`
`(h) a storage medium in communication with the at least one
`processor, the storage medium having encoded thereon a set of
`instructions executable by the at least one processor to control
`operation of the first video communication device, the set of
`instructions comprising:
`
`(i) instructions for receiving, via the wireless network interface, a
`connection request from a communication server on the Internet, the
`connection request originating from the second video communication
`device;
`
`(j) instructions for notifying the user of the communication request;
`
`(k) instructions for receiving user input accepting the connection
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`request;
`
`(l) instructions for receiving a video call over a peer-to-peer Internet
`communication session with the second video communication device,
`via the wireless network interface;
`
`(m) instructions for transmitting an audio watermark signal through
`the HDMI output interface;
`
`(n) instructions for determining whether a speaker of the high-
`definition television is powered on and enabled to play audio output
`from the first video communication device, based on reception of the
`audio watermark signal through at least one of the one or more
`microphones;
`
`(o) instructions for receiving a high-definition set-top box audiovisual
`stream from the set-top box, wherein set-top box audiovisual stream
`comprises a set-top box video stream and a set-top box audio stream,
`the set-top box video stream having a display area comprising a
`plurality of pixels, the plurality of pixels defining a display resolution
`of the set-top box video stream;
`
`(p) instructions for receiving a remote audiovisual stream from the
`second video communication device over the wireless network
`interface, wherein the remote audiovisual stream comprises a remote
`video stream and a remote audio stream;
`
`(q) instructions for detecting the display resolution of set-top box
`video stream;
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`(r) instructions for setting a display resolution of the remote video
`stream, based at least in part on one or more factors selected from the
`group consisting of the detected display resolution of the set-top box
`video stream, a bandwidth of a connection between the first video
`communication device and the second video communication device,
`and a user-specified setting;
`
`(s) instructions for modifying the set-top box video stream, in
`response to receiving the video call;
`
`(t) instructions for allocating at least a portion of the display area of
`the set-top box video stream, comprising at least some of the plurality
`of pixels, for displaying at least a portion of the remote video stream,
`to produce a consolidated high-definition output video stream
`comprising at least a portion of the remote video stream;
`
`(u) instructions for transmitting the consolidated high definition
`output video stream on the HDMI output interface, for display on the
`high-definition television
`
`(v) instructions for producing a consolidated audio output stream
`comprising at least the remote audio stream;
`
`(w) instructions for transmitting the consolidated audio output stream
`on the HDMI output interface, based on a determination that the
`speaker of the high-definition television is powered on and enabled to
`play audio output from the first video communication device;
`
`(x) instructions for controlling the camera to capture a captured video
`stream;
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`(y) instructions for controlling the one or more microphones to
`capture a captured audio stream;
`
`(z) instructions for canceling echo in the captured audio stream;
`
`(aa) instructions for encoding the captured video stream and the
`captured audio stream as a series of packets for transmission over the
`Internet; and
`
`(ab) instructions for transmitting the series of packets over the peer-to-
`peer communication session.
`
`4. The system of claim 1, wherein the connection request comprises a
`video clip, and wherein the instructions for notifying the user of the
`connection request comprise instructions for providing a notification
`comprising the video clip.
`
`5. The system of claim 1, wherein the connection request comprises
`an audio clip, and wherein the instructions for notifying the user of the
`connection request comprise instructions for providing a notification
`comprising the audio clip.
`
`6. A video communication system, comprising:
`
`a first video communication device, comprising:
`
`(a) a video input interface to receive video input from a set-top box;
`
`(b) an audio input interface to receive audio input from the set-top
`box;
`
`(c) a video output interface to provide video output to a video display
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182
`
`device;
`
`(d) an audio output interface to provide audio output to an audio
`receiver;
`
`(e) a video capture device to capture video;
`
`(f) an audio capture device to capture audio;
`
`(g) a network interface;
`
`(h) at least one processor; and
`
`(i) a storage medium in communication with the at least one
`processor, the storage medium having encoded thereon a set of
`instructions executable by the at least one processor to control
`operation of the first video communication device, the set of
`instructions comprising:
`
`(j) instructions for controlling the video capture device to capture a
`captured video stream;
`
`(k) instructions for controlling the audio capture device to capture a
`captured audio stream;
`
`(l) instructions for encoding the captured video stream and the
`captured audio stream to produce a series of data packets;