`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DIRECTV, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`QURIO HOLDINGS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE: IPR2015-02005
`Patent No. 7,787,904 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,787,904 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ........................................................................................................ ii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B) ............................ 1
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ................................... 3
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 904 PATENT ............................................................. 5
`A.
`SUMMARY OF THE 904 PATENT ................................................... 5
`B.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ......................................................... 7
`C.
`STATE OF THE PRIOR ART BEFORE THE 904 PATENT ............ 8
`D.
`SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION FILE HISTORY ................ 10
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .................................................... 11
`V.
`VI. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE 904 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .................... 12
`A.
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE REFERENCES AS PRIOR ART ....... 12
`B.
`SUMMARY OF INVALIDITY POSITIONS ................................... 16
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS ............................... 17
`A. GROUND 1: THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER DE VET IN VIEW OF VIDAL .............................................. 17
`B. GROUND 2: THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER MORSE AND HOLLOWAY ................................................ 33
`C. GROUND 3: THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER NETREMOTE AND RX3000 ............................................... 48
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,787,904 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904 B2 to Qurio Holdings, Inc. (“the 904
`Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904 B2
`
`Ex. 1003 De Vet et al, “A personal digital assistant as an advanced remote
`control for audio/video equipment” from the Second Workshop on
`Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices, 1999 (“De Vet”)
`
`Ex. 1004 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0193426 (“Vidal”)
`
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0057538 (“Morse”)
`
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0041655 (“Holloway”)
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`(Reserved)
`
`Ex. 1008 NetRemote LE Installation Guide (“Installation Guide”)
`
`Ex. 1009 NetRemote LE Network Configuration Guide (“Configuration
`Guide”)
`
`Ex. 1010 NetRemote LE Setup Guide (“Setup Guide”)
`
`Ex. 1011 October 13, 2004 Internet Archive Capture of
`http://www.promixis.com/products.php?section=netremote
`(“NetRemote Webpage”)
`
`Ex. 1012 User’s Guide for HP iPAQ rx3000 series Mobile Media Companion,
`Document Part Number 364351-002, August 2004 (“RX3000”)
`
`Ex. 1013 Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. (“Lavian Decl.”)
`
`Ex. 1014 Declaration of John de Vet
`
`Ex. 1015 Declaration of Ron Bessems
`
`Ex. 1016 Declaration of Lisa Gade
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,787,904 B2
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`(continued)
`
`Ex. 1017 Declaration of Christopher Butler
`
`Ex. 1018 Declaration of Mark Dunlop, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1019 Declaration of Sara Hare
`
`Ex. 1020 U.S. Pub. No. 2001/0033244 A1 to Harris et al.
`
`Ex. 1021 U.S. Patent No. 4,746,919 to Reitmeier
`
`Ex. 1022 U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0115351 to Giobbi
`
`Ex. 1023 U.S. Patent No. 7,571,014 to Lambourne et al.
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Peter Tarasewich, Wireless Devices for Mobile Commerce: User
`Interface Design and Usability, in Mobile Commerce: Technology,
`Theory, and Applications 26-50 (2002).
`
`Ex. 1025 Brad A. Myers, Using handhelds for wireless remote control of PCs
`and appliances 17 Interacting with Computers 251-264 (2005)
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`Labeled Claim Language of Claims 1-20 of U.S. Pat. No. 7,787,904
`B2
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,787,904 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, DIRECTV, LLC
`
`(“Petitioner”) petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-3, 10, 12, and
`
`15-18 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Pat. No. 7,787,904 B2 (“the 904 Patent,” Ex.
`
`5
`
`1001), assigned to Qurio Holdings, Inc. The 904 Patent describes a mobile device
`
`that wirelessly communicates with media devices to select content to be played by
`
`the media devices (i.e. a “smart remote”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), this
`
`Petition shows the reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to
`
`at least one of the Challenged Claims, which are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35
`
`10
`
`U.S.C. § 102 and/or § 103 based on specific grounds listed below. In addition, this
`
`Petition demonstrates invalidity of each challenged claim by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). The Office is respectfully
`
`requested to institute an IPR trial and to cancel the Challenged Claims.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)
`Real Party in Interest: Petitioner DIRECTV, LLC identifies AT&T Services,
`
`15
`
`Inc. as a real party in interest. Out of an abundance of caution, DIRECTV, LLC
`
`also identifies AT&T Inc. as a real party in interest only for the purpose of this
`
`proceeding based on recent decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and
`
`only to the extent that Patent Owner contends that this separate legal entity should
`
`20
`
`be named a real party in interest in this IPR. AT&T Inc. is and always has been a
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,787,904 B2
`
`holding company that is a legally and factually distinct entity from its subsidiaries.
`
`AT&T Inc. does not provide any of the products and services at issue in the
`
`underlying patent infringement lawsuit. Also, out of an abundance of caution,
`
`DIRECTV, LLC also identifies the following companies as real parties in interest
`
`5
`
`only for the purpose of this proceeding based on recent decisions of the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board, and only to the extent that Patent Owner contends that
`
`each separate legal entity should be named a real party in interest in this IPR:
`
`DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC; DIRECTV Holdings LLC; The DIRECTV Group,
`
`Inc.; and DIRECTV Group Holdings LLC. Each of these entities maintains its
`
`10
`
`own independent status, identity, and structure.
`
`Related Matters: The 904 Patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,102,863 and
`
`8,879,567 are asserted against Petitioner in an on-going lawsuit in Qurio Holdings,
`
`Inc. v. DIRECTV, LLC, 3:15-cv-01986 (N.D. Cal), transferred from 14-cv-07502
`
`(N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2015). Petitioner is also pursuing IPR of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`15
`
`8,102,863 and 8,879,567. The 904 Patent is also asserted in Qurio Holdings, Inc. v.
`
`Dish Network Corp. 15-cv-00930 (N.D. Cal.), and Qurio Holdings, Inc. v. Comcast
`
`Cable Communications LLC, 15-cv-03334 (E.D. Pa.). On September 28, 2015,
`
`Unified Patents Inc. filed an unrelated IPR petition challenging claims 1-5, 7-10,
`
`12, and 14-18 of the 904 Patent, assigned Case No. IPR2015-01991.
`
`20
`
`Notice of Counsel and Service Information: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,787,904 B2
`
`§§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4) and 42.10(a), Petitioner appoints Thomas N. Millikan
`
`(Reg. No. 72,316) as its lead counsel, and Kevin J. Patariu (Reg. No. 63,210),
`
`Joseph P. Reid (Reg. No. 72,317), Bing Ai (Reg. No. 43,312), and Stephen A.
`
`Brookman (Reg. No. 65,152) as its back-up counsel. The above attorneys are all at
`
`5
`
`the mailing address of Perkins Coie LLP, 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350, San
`
`Diego, CA 92130, contact numbers of 858-720-5700 (phone) and 858-720-5799
`
`(fax), and the following email for service and all communications:
`
`DIRECTV-Qurio-Service-IPR@perkinscoie.com
`
`Petitioner hereby consents to electronic service under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e). Pursuant
`
`10
`
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney executed by Petitioner for appointing
`
`the above designated counsel is concurrently filed.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`This Petition complies with all requirements under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104,
`
`42.105 and 42.15 and thus should be accorded a filing date as the date of filing of
`
`15
`
`this Petition pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.106.
`
`Ground for Standing: Pursuant to § 42.104(a), Petitioner hereby certifies
`
`that the 904 Patent is available for IPR and that the Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting IPR challenging claims of the 904 Patent on the grounds
`
`identified herein. Specifically, Petitioner has the standing, or meets all
`
`20
`
`requirements, to file this Petition under 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(a)(1), 315(b), 315(e)(1)
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,787,904 B2
`
`and 325(e)(1) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.73(d)(1), 42.101 and 42.102.
`
`Identification of the Challenge: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b) and
`
`42.22, the precise relief requested is that the Board cancel the Challenged Claims
`
`of the 904 Patent because they are invalid on the grounds and evidence presented
`
`5
`
`and relied upon in this Petition: De Vet, Vidal, Morse, Holloway, Installation
`
`Guide, Configuration Guide, Setup Guide, NetRemote Webpage, and RX3000,
`
`attached as Exhibits and discussed in more detail in Section V.A.
`
`Supporting Evidence Relied Upon for the Challenge: The supporting
`
`evidence includes what is in the Exhibit List or what is referred in the papers filed
`
`10
`
`with this Petition, including but not limited to the Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`
`(Ex. 1013) supporting the invalidity grounds, the Declaration of John de Vet (Ex.
`
`1014) regarding the de Vet reference in Ex. 1003, the Declaration of Mark Dunlop,
`
`Ph.D. (Ex. 1018) regarding the de Vet reference in Ex. 1003, the Declaration of
`
`Ron Bessems (Ex. 1015) regarding the NetRemote references in Exs. 1008-1011,
`
`15
`
`the Declaration of Lisa Gade (Ex. 1016) regarding the RX3000 reference in Ex.
`
`1012, the Declaration of Christopher Butler (Ex. 1017) regarding various Internet
`
`Archive references, including Ex. 1003 and Exs. 1008-11, and the Declaration of
`
`Sara Hare (Ex. 1019) regarding the collection of Exhibits and Appendices are filed
`
`herewith.
`
`20
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge: This IPR is governed by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,787,904 B2
`
`§§ 102 and 103 that were in effect before Mar. 16, 2013 and 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 to
`
`319 and 325 that took effect on Sep. 16, 2012.
`
`Rule of Claim Construction: A claim in an unexpired patent such as the 904
`
`Patent “shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`5
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`Unpatentability of Each Claim: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(4),
`
`Section VI provides an explanation of how the Challenged Claims are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103, including the identification of where each element of the
`
`10
`
`claim is found in the cited prior art of patents or printed publications.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 904 PATENT
`The 904 Patent issued on Aug. 31, 2010 from an application filed on Nov. 9,
`
`2005, which is the earliest priority date of the 904 Patent.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE 904 PATENT
`
`A.
`The 904 Patent describes a mobile device that wirelessly communicates with
`
`15
`
`media devices to select content to be played by the media devices (i.e. a “smart
`
`remote”). See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract; 3:4-8, 41-47; 4:15-20, 38-40; Figs. 2-4 and
`
`6. Fig. 6 is shown below to illustrate various features disclosed in the 904 Patent.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,787,904 B2
`
`
`
`The mobile device, such as a mobile phone, a PDA, or “a stand-alone device
`
`similar to a remote control,” has a control system and a wireless communication
`
`interface for communicating (e.g., via a WPAN such as Bluetooth or WiFi) with
`
`5
`
`the media devices. Ex. 1001, 1:29-30; 4:4-7, 15-20. The control system of the
`
`mobile device includes a media client and a media database of information about
`
`the media content. Id. at 4:21-23; 5:22-26; Figs. 3, 5. The media client of the
`
`mobile device wirelessly interacts with a media server (associated with a media
`
`device) to obtain data describing the content in a content database (also associated
`
`10
`
`with the media device), such as filename, file type, or genre. Id. at 4:25-33; 5:22-
`
`26; 6:19-20; Fig. 3; Fig. 5. The media database of the mobile device stores the
`
`metadata, which a user can browse to select content for play. Id. at 4:30-31, 38-40.
`
`The media client in the mobile device directs the media server associated
`
`with the media device to play content, and the media server directs a media player
`
`15
`
`(also associated with the media device) to play the content from the content
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,787,904 B2
`
`database. Ex. 1001, 6:33-40, Fig. 4, Fig. 6. PCs, DVRs, audio players (e.g., MP3
`
`players), and digital picture frames are examples of media devices. Id. at 3:26-31.
`
`Each media device includes the content database (e.g., a hard drive or RAM), a
`
`wireless communication interface for communicating with the mobile device (e.g.,
`
`5
`
`via Bluetooth or WiFi), and a control system. Id. at 3:32-35, 54-57. The control
`
`system includes the media player and the media server. Id. at 3:48-49.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`B.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) as of the earliest date for
`
`which the 904 Patent can claim priority (Nov. 2005) would have possessed at least
`
`10
`
`a bachelor’s degree in computer science and/or electrical engineering and two
`
`years of experience in internet, networking, or related software technologies, as
`
`well as familiarity with mobile wireless devices and communications. Lavian Decl.
`
`at ¶ 33. Such a person would have familiarity with communications between
`
`wireless clients and hosts, as well as various wireless standards such as Wi-Fi or
`
`15
`
`Bluetooth. Id.
`
`STATE OF THE PRIOR ART BEFORE THE 904 PATENT
`
`C.
`The purported technology claimed in the 904 Patent was old and well-known
`
`long before Nov. 9, 2005. See e.g., Lavian Decl. at ¶¶ 35, 152. For example,
`
`wireless remote controls for media players were introduced before 1950. Id. at ¶40.
`
`20
`
`Mobile devices such as PDAs and cellular telephones were available in the 1990’s.
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,787,904 B2
`
`Id. at ¶¶ 43-44. Wireless communication between devices via Wi-Fi, infrared, and
`
`Bluetooth were all in the prior art. Id. at ¶¶ 45-48; see Ex. 1001 at 4:15-20.
`
`The concept of retrieving information from a device and controlling the
`
`device remotely based on that information (including outputting content based on
`
`5
`
`that information) was also well-known in the public domain. For decades, UNIX
`
`terminals could connect to a computer over a network to retrieve information about
`
`files stored by the computer (such a file listing) in response to a user command.
`
`Lavian Decl. at ¶¶ 50-51. The terminal user could perform an operation on those
`
`files, such as sending the file to a printer connected to the computer. Id.
`
`10
`
`Similar concepts – such as networked arrangements to browse and control
`
`the playback of digital content on remotely controlled devices – were disclosed for
`
`wireless remote control devices well before the 904 Patent’s priority date. See
`
`Lavian Decl. at ¶¶ 53-59. For example, in 1986, the prior art included a system in
`
`which a device to be controlled (e.g., TV, VCR) wirelessly transmitted information
`
`15
`
`to a touch-screen remote control to identify functions of on-screen buttons. See Ex.
`
`1021 (Patent No. 4,746,919 (filed Mar. 28, 1986)); Lavian Decl. at ¶ 52. In 2001,
`
`the prior art disclosed a Bluetooth remote control that received media information
`
`(e.g., track listing on a CD) from a control station for display on a screen on the
`
`remote control for a user to select media to play. Ex. 1020 (Patent Application
`
`20
`
`Publication No. 2001/0033244, published Oct. 25, 2001) at ¶¶ 70-74; Figs. 14, 15;
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,787,904 B2
`
`Lavian Decl. at ¶ 52; see Ex. 1002 at 46-61 (October 2005 prior art explaining
`
`“Bluetooth Remote Control is a remote controller for your PC” and showing
`
`control of iTunes from the mobile device); Lavian Decl. at ¶¶ 40-42, 52-58.
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0115351 (published Jun. 19, 2003)
`
`5
`
`disclosed remote media clients connected to a centralized digital content server and
`
`controlled by a wireless (e.g., Bluetooth) remote control with a screen for
`
`displaying and selecting content available on the server for streaming to a remote
`
`media client for playback. See, e.g., Ex. 1022 at ¶¶ 0009-12; Lavian Decl. at ¶53.
`
`In another sophisticated example, over a year before the 904 Patent’s
`
`10
`
`application, a patent application was filed for a system in which a wireless (e.g.,
`
`WiFi) remote control displayed a plurality of zones, each having one or more
`
`media players, along with a selection of tracks available to play on the media
`
`players. See Ex. 1023 (patent filing in June 2004); Lavian Decl. at ¶ 54. The
`
`remote control allowed a user to select tracks to play at the media players
`
`15
`
`individually (e.g., each device plays a different track at a different volume) or
`
`synchronously (e.g., each device plays the same track), using track information
`
`displayed on the remote control. Ex. 1023 at Fig. 3B, 3C; Lavian Decl. at ¶ 54.
`
`These technologies were so common that by July 2004, one author wrote an
`
`entire article about using handhelds that displayed functions and media information
`
`20
`
`on-screen as wireless remote controls. Ex. 1025; see Lavian Decl. at ¶¶ 55-58.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,787,904 B2
`
`Accordingly, the concept of remotely controlling media files on media
`
`devices by selecting from options stored in a mobile device (and displayed on a
`
`screen) was old and well known. Long before the priority date of the 904 Patent, a
`
`POSITA would not have recognized any novelty in the claimed features. Lavian
`
`5
`
`Decl. at ¶ 513. Thus, the Challenged Claims are nothing more than belated
`
`attempts to claim what was already known in the industry. Yet, none of the
`
`references relied on for proposed grounds of rejection in this Petition were
`
`identified by or considered by the Office during the prosecution of the 904 Patent.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION FILE HISTORY
`
`D.
`During the original prosecution, the claims of the 904 Patent were rejected
`
`10
`
`twice in two non-final Office Actions using the same base reference, which related
`
`to controlling user access of content at a mobile terminal. Ex. 1002 at 85-92 (first
`
`non-final action); 101-105 (response to first non-final action); 116-130 (second
`
`non-final action); 134-143 (response to second non-final action). Then,
`
`15
`
`surprisingly, the claims were allowed without having been amended and without
`
`any record suggesting the reasons for allowance. See Ex.1002 at 146-152.
`
`As shown by the cited prior art references in this Petition, the Examiner
`
`relied on an incomplete record of relevant prior art during the examination and did
`
`not know that the subject matter of the issued claims in the 904 Patent was well
`
`20
`
`known before its filing date and thus was not patentable.
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,787,904 B2
`
`V.
`
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Petitioner proposes construction of one claim term below pursuant to the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard for inter partes review. The
`
`proposed BRI claim constructions are offered only to comply with 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`5
`
`42.100(b) and 42.104(b)(3) and for the sole purpose of this Petition, and thus do
`
`not necessarily reflect appropriate claim constructions to be used in litigation and
`
`other proceedings where a different claim construction standard applies. The term
`
`of “Mobile Device” in each of the Challenged Claims is construed under BRI to
`
`mean “[A] mobile phone, Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), or the like [or] a
`
`10
`
`stand-alone device similar to a remote control.” Ex. 1001 at 4:4-7; Lavian Decl. at
`
`¶¶ 77-78. All other claim terms in the Challenged Claims are construed to have
`
`their respective plain and ordinary meaning under BRI.
`
`VI. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE 904 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`15
`
`The Challenged Claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
`
`merely reciting known, predictable and/or obvious combinations of the prior art.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE REFERENCES AS PRIOR ART
`
`A.
`De Vet (Ex. 1003): De Vet is prior art under §102(b) because it was
`
`published in 1999. Ex. 1014 at ¶¶ 6-7, 12 (declaration by co-author describing
`
`20
`
`submission and presentation of De Vet at technology conference in 1999, and
`
`access by public to a copy on a website); Ex. 1018 at ¶¶ 20-21 (declaration by
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,787,904 B2
`
`conference co-organizer describing public access to De Vet on website and
`
`presentation at conference); Ex. 1017 at Ex. A, p. 78-82 (internet archive
`
`declaration of Christopher Butler showing publication on internet on March 14,
`
`2003). Other printed papers and publications cited this paper well before the filing
`
`5
`
`of the 904 Patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1024 at 13. De Vet discloses using a handheld
`
`PDA device as a catalogue and remote control to browse, select, and play music
`
`tracks in a virtual CD jukebox (i.e., a CD collection in MP3 format on a PC)
`
`organizing the tracks available for playback by CD. Ex. 1003 at 87-88. The PDA
`
`displays attributes such as genre, artist, release year, and album. Id. at 87-88. The
`
`10
`
`PDA communicates with the PC via a wireless infrared link. Id. at 88. Connecting
`
`the PDA to the PC results in an update of the catalogue, which is stored and
`
`available for viewing even when the PDA is out of range of the PC. Id. at 88-89.
`
`De Vet also discloses controlling multiple devices and using the PDA to store a
`
`catalog of video discs or videotapes, or to function as an electronic program guide
`
`15
`
`for television. Id. at 89.
`
`Vidal (Ex. 1004): Vidal was a U.S. patent application published on Oct. 16,
`
`2003, and thus is prior art under §102(b). Vidal discloses a touch-screen universal
`
`remote control that wirelessly communicates with and controls a plurality of
`
`appliances (e.g., TV, stereo, computer, DVD player, MP3 player). Ex. 1004 at
`
`20
`
`Abstract, ¶¶ 0019, 0033, Figs. 1, 2. The remote control automatically discovers
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,787,904 B2
`
`appliances through the wireless communication interface (e.g., Bluetooth or other
`
`RF or infrared link) and provides a user with options to choose an appliance. Id. at
`
`¶¶ 0035-38, 0052, 0055, Figs. 2, 5. Upon selection of an appliance, the remote
`
`control requests a menu description from the appliance. Id. at ¶¶ 0036, 0053, 0057,
`
`5
`
`Fig. 6. The appliance responds with the menu description, which is a specification
`
`that the remote control interprets to configure the user interface screen to display a
`
`menu of options (e.g., play, stop, fast-forward) for a user to operate the appliance
`
`with the remote control. Id. at ¶¶ 0020, 0036, 0041-42, 0053, 0057, Fig. 3. Data
`
`sent from the appliance to the remote control for display may also include the title
`
`10
`
`of a movie being played and progress within the movie. Id. at ¶¶ 0041-42, 0059,
`
`Fig. 3.
`
`Morse (Ex. 1005): Morse was a patent application filed on Sept. 2, 2003 and
`
`published on Mar. 17, 2005. Morse is prior art under at least §§102(a) and 102(e).
`
`Morse describes a playback unit that communicates content data (e.g., audio track
`
`15
`
`titles, album names, and video clip titles) about digital media files stored on a
`
`media content storage device. Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 0029, 0035-36, 0054-55; Fig. 2. The
`
`content data is communicated to a remote control device that displays it to a user.
`
`Id. The displayed information is used to browse the content data on the remote
`
`control and select media for playback at a playback device (e.g., a TV or stereo
`
`20
`
`system). Id. A single remote control can communicate with more than one
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,787,904 B2
`
`playback unit. Id. at ¶¶ 0040, 0043, 0048, Fig. 10.
`
`Holloway (Ex. 1006): Holloway is prior art under at least § 102(e) because
`
`it is a Feb. 23, 2006 publication of an application filed on Jan. 5, 2005, and claims
`
`priority to a provisional application filed on May 6, 2004. Holloway discloses a
`
`5
`
`wireless remote control for controlling a host A/V system using Bluetooth bi-
`
`directional communication. Ex. 1006 at Abstract, ¶¶ 0081, 0116, 0363-65. The
`
`host A/V system is an assembly of various A/V elements in a single chassis, such
`
`as a CD player, an MP3 player, and a hard drive. Id. at ¶¶ 0052, 0059, 0063, Figs.
`
`1-7. The remote control receives a menu of options and information from the host
`
`10
`
`A/V system for display to a user, such as media titles and “a file system [for the
`
`internal hard drive] so that the user can select a file to play back.” Id. at ¶¶ 0132,
`
`0210; Figs. 11A, 11B. One remote can control all hosts in an environment having
`
`multiple hosts. Id. at ¶ 0385. To do this, the remote can display hosts with which
`
`it can communicate, and a user can select a host to control. Id.
`
`15
`
`NetRemote LE Installation Guide (“Installation Guide”) (Ex.1008),
`
`NetRemote LE Network Configuration Guide (“Configuration Guide”) (Ex.1009),
`
`NetRemote LE Setup Guide (“Setup Guide”) (Ex. 1010), the NetRemote Webpage
`
`(Ex.1011) (collectively, “NetRemote”): The NetRemote documents were each
`
`publically available and published online in connection with sales and support of
`
`20
`
`NetRemote software by at least Jan. 20, 2005, and describe different aspects of the
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,787,904 B2
`
`installation, setup, and use of the NetRemote software. Ex. 1015 at ¶¶ 11-29; Ex.
`
`1017 at Ex. A, pp. 4-21 (showing Installation Guide publicly available on the
`
`internet as of January 20, 2005), pp. 22-34 (showing Configuration Guide publicly
`
`available on the internet as of January 19, 2005), pp. 23-52 (showing Configuration
`
`5
`
`Guide publicly available on the internet as of January 20, 2005). Accordingly, the
`
`NetRemote documents are each prior art printed publications under at least
`
`§ 102(a). The NetRemote references disclose a handheld PDA device configured
`
`to provide 2-way wireless (Wi-Fi) remote control functionality of a computer. Ex.
`
`1010 at 1,7; Ex. 1011. The PDA receives media information (e.g., by title or
`
`10
`
`album cover) from a computer about the music available for playback on that
`
`computer. Id. The user can view and browse this information on the PDA, and
`
`send a command to the computer to play the selected music. Id.
`
`RX3000 (Ex.1012): The RX3000 is dated Aug. 2004, and is a common
`
`manual for several HP PDAs, including the HP iPAQ RX3115 handheld
`
`15
`
`computing device, and the manual was included with the product available for
`
`public purchase by at least Sept. 2004 (Ex. 1016 at ¶¶ 6-16). RX3000 is a prior art
`
`printed publication under § 102(b). RX3000 discloses a portable handheld
`
`computing device that allows the user to view a list of media files stored on a
`
`server. Ex.1012 at 121, 182-186. The user can “browse and play music, photos,
`
`20
`
`and video collections over a wireless network” and to “[p]lay and control digital
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,787,904 B2
`
`media on PCs connected to your Wi-Fi network.” Id. RX3000 discloses using the
`
`device to select a media server from which a user wants to access media, select a
`
`media player on which the user wants the media to play, and selecting the media
`
`itself for play. Id. at 182-184. RX3000 discloses copying and storing media
`
`5
`
`information to the device for later playback and viewing. Id. at 121, 189-90.
`
`None of the prior art references relied upon in this Petition were on record
`
`during the original examination of the 904 Patent. See generally, Ex. 1002.
`
`SUMMARY OF INVALIDITY POSITIONS
`
`B.
`The cited references disclose all elements and combinations recited in the
`
`10
`
`Challenged Claims. Specifically, the cited references disclose mobile devices that
`
`receive and store information over a wireless interface about media from media
`
`devices. The mobile device displays the information to a user so that a user can
`
`browse and select media for playback by the media device, issuing a playback
`
`command over a wireless interface. The cited references and other evidence in this
`
`15
`
`Petition establish a reasonable likelihood Petitioner will prevail with respect to its
`
`challenge of the patentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims, as explained
`
`below. Specifically, the Challenged Claims are rendered obvious by De Vet in
`
`view of Vidal, by Morse in view of Holloway, and by the NetRemote references in
`
`view of RX3000.
`
`20
`
`Additionally, the Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., an expert with
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,787,904 B2
`
`considerable knowledge and practical experience in this technical field, confirms
`
`Petitioner’s invalidity positions and also provides further details as to how the
`
`technology in the 904 Patent was well-known and implemented as a matter of
`
`routine in the systems and software that were in existence well before the priority
`
`5
`
`date of the 904 Patent. See generally Lavian Decl.
`
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits that the need for just resolution of the
`
`unpatentability issues urges the full adoption of all proposed invalidity grounds.
`
`10
`
`An index of claim limitations is included as Ex. 1026.
`
`A. GROUND 1: THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER DE VET IN VIEW OF VIDAL
`
`Both De Vet and Vidal describe remote control systems for media players.
`
`De Vet discloses using a handheld PDA to browse and select tracks for play in a
`
`15
`
`media collection on a PC via infrared. Ex. 1003 at 88. De Vet discloses that a
`
`remote control could be advantageously used to control multiple devices in the
`
`same room and access a variety of content on those devices (e.g., collections of
`
`videodiscs or an electronic program guide for TV programming). Id. at 89; see
`
`Lavian Decl. at ¶¶ 160, 177. De Vet teaches and renders obvious every limitation
`
`20
`
`of the Challenged Claims, but Petitioner further cites Vidal in this Ground for
`
`additional technical teachings, for example, a design choice of using Bluetooth
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,787,904 B2
`
`communication to select and control devices and facilitate secure communications.
`
`In the same field of remote control systems for media players as De Vet,
`
`Vidal also discloses a touch screen remote control system that wirelessly
`
`communicates with multiple devices, using protocols such as Bluetooth. See, e.g.,
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 0033, 0040, 0047, 0048, 0052, 0055. The wireless communication
`
`in Vidal also discloses using the remote control to select and operate a specific
`
`device out of several devices. Id. at ¶¶ 0036, 0041, 0053.
`
`De Vet and Vidal teach technologies in the same field of remotely
`
`controlling devices and both address similar technical problems related to
`
`10
`
`presenting options on a remote controlto a user. Lavian Decl. at ¶¶ 163, 200. De
`
`Vet discloses that it would be desirable for a remote control to be used to control
`
`multiple devices in the same room.