Paper No. __
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Petitioners
`By: Randy J. Pritzker
`
`Michael N. Rader
`
`Robert M. Abrahamsen
`
`Andrew J. Tibbetts
`
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`
`Boston, MA 02210
`
`Tel: (617) 646-8000
`
`Fax: (617) 646-8646
`
`RPritzker-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION, SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.,
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AB & SONY MOBILE
`COMMUNICATIONS INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................... 5
`
`A. Related Matters ............................................................................................ 5
`
`B. Real Party-In-Interest .................................................................................. 6
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information – § 42.8(b)(3) and (4) ............................ 8
`
`III. NOTICE OF FEES PAID .................................................................................. 8
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................... 8
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED ........... 9
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’433 PATENT .............................................................. 9
`
`A. Technology Overview ................................................................................. 9
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................. 10
`
`VII. CLAIM INTERPRETATION ......................................................................... 11
`
`A. “portable media player” – Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 17-28 ........................ 11
`
`B. “display screen” – Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 19, 21, 23, 25 and 27 ...................... 12
`
`VIII. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ............... 16
`
`IX. CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY .................................................................................... 17
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 17, and 18 Are Anticipated by Looney ....... 17
`
`1. Looney ................................................................................................. 17
`
`2. Looney Anticipates Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 17 and 18 ................................ 22
`
`a. Independent claim 1 .................................................................... 22
`
`b. Claim 2 ........................................................................................ 31
`
`c. Claim 3 ........................................................................................ 33
`
`d. Claim 5 ........................................................................................ 34
`
`e. Claim 7 ........................................................................................ 35
`
`f. Claims 17-18 ............................................................................... 36
`
`B. Ground 2: Claims 2, 3, and 19-28 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`Looney in View of Proehl. ........................................................................ 37
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`
`
`1. Proehl ................................................................................................... 37
`1. Pmoehl ................................................................................................. "37
`
`2. Reasons to Combine Proehl with Looney ........................................... 40
`2. Reasons to Combine Proehl with Looney ......................................... ..4O
`
`3. The Looney-Proehl Combination ........................................................ 40
`3. The Looney—Proehl Combination ...................................................... ..4O
`
`4. Claims 19-28 Would Have Been Obvious Over Looney in View
`4. Claims 19-28 Would Have Been Obvious Over Looney in View
`of Proehl. ............................................................................................. 46
`of Proehl. ........................................................................................... ..46
`
`a. Claims 19, 21 and 25 ................................................................... 46
`a. Claims 19, 21 and 25 ................................................................. ..46
`
`b. Claim 23 ...................................................................................... 51
`b. Claim 23 .................................................................................... ..51
`
`c. Claim 27 ...................................................................................... 54
`c. Claim 27 .................................................................................... ..54
`
`a. Claims 20, 22, 24, 26 and 28 ...................................................... 58
`a. Claims 20, 22, 24, 26 and 28 .................................................... ..58
`
`5. Claims 2 and 3 Would Have Been Obvious Over Looney in
`5. Claims 2 and 3 Would Have Been Obvious Over Looney in
`View of Proehl. .................................................................................... 58
`View of Proehl ................................................................................... ..5 8
`
`C. Ground 3: Claims 23, 24, 27 and 28 Would Have Been Obvious
`. Ground 3: Claims 23, 24, 27 and 28 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Looney in View of Proehl and Johnson ........................................... 60
`Over Looney in View of Proehl and Johnson ......................................... ..6O
`
`1. Johnson ................................................................................................ 61
`1.
`Johnson .............................................................................................. "61
`
`2. Reasons to Combine Johnson with Looney and Proehl ...................... 62
`2. Reasons to Combine Johnson with Looney and Proehl .................... ..62
`
`3. The Looney-Proehl-Johnson Combination Would Have Met All
`3. The Looney—Proehl—Johnson Combination Would Have Met All
`Limitations of Claims 23, 24, 27, and 28 ............................................ 62
`Limitations of Claims 23, 24, 27, and 28 .......................................... ..62
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 17 and 18 Would Have Been Obvious
`. Ground 4: Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 17 and 18 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Birrell in View of Seidensticker ....................................................... 63
`Over Birrell in View of Seidensticker ..................................................... ..63
`
`1. Birrell ................................................................................................... 63
`1. Birrell ................................................................................................. ..63
`
`2. Seidensticker ....................................................................................... 65
`2 Seidensticker ..................................................................................... ..65
`
`3. Reasons to Combine Birrell and Seidensticker ................................... 66
`3. Reasons to Combine Birrell and Seidensticker ................................. ..66
`
`4. The Birrell-Seidensticker Combination .............................................. 67
`4. The Birrell—Seidensticker Combination ............................................ ..67
`
`5. The Birrell-Seidensticker Combination Would Have Met All
`5. The Birrell—Seidensticker Combination Would Have Met All
`Limitations of Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 17 and 18 ......................................... 70
`Lhnfiafionsof(Hahns2,3,5,7,17and18 ....................................... "70
`
`a. Independent Claim 1 ................................................................... 70
`a.
`IndependentCHahn 1 ................................................................. "70
`
`b. Claim 2 ........................................................................................ 76
`b. Claim 2 ...................................................................................... "76
`
`c. Claim 3 ........................................................................................ 78
`c. Claim 3 ...................................................................................... ..78
`
`d. Claim 5 ........................................................................................ 78
`d. Claim 5 ...................................................................................... ..78
`
`e. Claim 7 ........................................................................................ 78
`e. Claim 7 ...................................................................................... ..78
`
`f. Claims 17 and 18 ......................................................................... 79
`f. CHahns17and18 ....................................................................... "79
`
`—iii—
`- iii -
`
`

`
`
`
`E. Ground 5: Claims 19-28 Would Have Been Obvious Over Birrell in
`View of Seidensticker, Further in View of Proehl .................................... 80
`
`1. Proehl ................................................................................................... 80
`
`2. Reasons to Combine Proehl with Birrell and Seidensticker ............... 81
`
`3. The Birrell-Seidensticker-Proehl Combination .................................. 82
`
`4. The Birrell-Seidensticker-Proehl Combination Would Have
`Met All Limitations of Claims 19-28 .................................................. 84
`
`a. Claims 19 and 21 ......................................................................... 84
`
`b. Claim 23 ...................................................................................... 87
`
`c. Claim 25 ...................................................................................... 89
`
`d. Claim 27 ...................................................................................... 92
`
`e. Claims 20, 22, 24, 26, and 28 ..................................................... 95
`
`F. Ground 6: Claims 23, 24, 27 and 28 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Birrell in View of Seidensticker, Proehl and Johnson ..................... 95
`
`1. Johnson ................................................................................................ 96
`
`2. Reasons to Combine Birrell, Seidensticker, Proehl, and Johnson ...... 96
`
`3. The Birrell-Seidensticker-Proehl-Johnson Combination Would
`Have Met All Limitations of Claims 23, 24, 27 and 28 ...................... 97
`
`G. Ground 7: Each Claim Reciting an “Active Queue List” Discussed
`Above in Grounds 4-6 Would Have Been Obvious in Further View
`of Looney. .................................................................................................. 97
`
`X. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................100
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`IPR2014-00481, Paper 35 (PTAB 2014) ............................................................. 12
`
`Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco P’ship,
`778 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 12
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Black Hills Media, LLC,
`IPR2014-00737, Paper 7 (PTAB 2014) ................................................................. 6
`
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC,
`742 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 12
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................ 17, 61
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ...................................................................................... 37, 63, 65
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ......................................................................................................100
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 16
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 .................................................................................................100
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,928,433 (“the ’433 patent”)
`
`Reexamination Certificate (469th) for U.S. Patent No. 6,928,433
`
`Original File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,928,433
`
`Reexamination File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,928,433
`
`Complaint Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, In the Matter of
`Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Components Thereof,
`Investigation No. 337-TA-994 (public version, without confidential
`exhibit) (“ITC Complaint”)
`
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson, PhD. (“Bederson”)
`
`File History of Application Serial No. 09/755,629
`
`File History of Application Serial No. 11/033,465
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,969,283 (“Looney”)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 5,969,283
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,118,450 (“Proehl”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,798,921 (“Johnson”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,332,175 (“Birrell”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,128,012 (“Seidensticker”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Benjamin B. Bederson, PhD.
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Black Hills Media, LLC, IPR2014-00737, Paper
`No. 7 (PTAB, Nov. 4, 2014)
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Sony Corporation, Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. (“SoMC-
`
`USA”), Sony Mobile Communications AB, and Sony Mobile Communications
`
`Inc. (“SoMC”) (collectively, “Petitioners”) request inter partes review of claims 2,
`
`3, 5, 7, and 17-28 of U.S. Patent No. 6,928,433 (“the ’433 patent”) (Ex. 1001), as
`
`amended by Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate (469th) (Ex. 1002).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’433 patent discloses “an efficient user interface for a small portable
`
`music player” and claims a method of using a sequence of display screens to
`
`navigate a music library according to hierarchical categories such as artists,
`
`albums, and genres. Ex. 1001 at 2:6-7. Figure 10 (reproduced below) illustrates
`
`hierarchy levels displayed on succeeding screens (e.g., Categories, Lists and
`
`Tracks). A user may operate a button (“OPEN”) to drill down from a selection on
`
`one screen (e.g., “Albums”) to corresponding information on a next screen (e.g., a
`
`list of albums). Id. at 8:25-27, 8:38-48. A user may also add songs to a playlist.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`
`
`The ’433 patent describes “portable media players” may have small displays and
`
`large storage, but none of the claims are limited in this manner.
`
`The prior art is replete with portable media players having hierarchical user
`
`interfaces like that of the ’433 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 5,969,283 to
`
`Looney (Ex. 1009). Indeed, the PTO repeatedly rejected claims in a related
`
`application, directed to the same interface of the ’433 patent, over Looney.
`
`The application that led to the ’433 patent did not originally describe in
`
`detail the subject matter (e.g., the user interface) of the ’433 patent’s claims.
`
`Rather, the user interface was described in another application, Serial No.
`
`09/755,629 (“the ’629 application”) (Ex. 1007). The claims of the ’629
`
`application, see id. at 6-20 and 62-67, recited user interface features including
`
`display screens for depicting hierarchical categories and playlists. Following
`
`rejection of the original claims of the application for the ’433 patent, as well as
`
`rejection (over Looney) of the ’629 application’s claims, Patent Owner (1)
`
`abandoned the ’629 application, (2) radically amended the application for the ’433
`
`patent to add the ’629 application’s user interface subject matter, and (3) replaced
`
`the pending claims with claims focused on the user interface. Ex. 1003 at 153-187.
`
`Though the Examiner of the ’629 application had repeatedly rejected claims to that
`
`user interface over Looney, the Examiner of the ’433 patent (a different Examiner)
`
`allowed the new claims without explanation. Ex. 1003 at 193-96.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Many of the ’433 patent’s claims are anticipated by Looney, and the rest
`
`would have been obvious over Looney. Bederson, ¶¶55-181. Looney describes a
`
`method of operating a user interface for browsing large music libraries made
`
`possible by “digital media” and “miniaturize[d] storage devices.” Looney at 1:28-
`
`61. It describes making selections, for playback and/or addition to a currently-
`
`playing playlist, from hierarchically-arranged music selection screens including
`
`categories and subcategories, id. at Abstract, and teaches that its interface may be
`
`used with “portable” and “mobile” devices, id. at 2:56-58, 13:19-61, or other
`
`media players that can be “moved from location to location,” id. at 12:53-67;
`
`Bederson, ¶¶55-64.
`
`Differences exist between Looney and the ’433 patent’s preferred
`
`embodiment, but are irrelevant to the ’433 patent’s claims, which are not limited to
`
`the preferred embodiment. Regardless, other prior art describes user interface
`
`techniques essentially identical to those of the ’433 patent’s preferred embodiment.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,128,012 to Seidensticker (Ex. 1014) describes a method of
`
`navigating multiple levels of a hierarchical directory of a portable electronic device
`
`by presenting different directory levels on succeeding screens. Just as in the ’433
`
`patent, buttons can be used to advance to the next level (or return to the previous
`
`level) of the hierarchy. Seidensticker at 2:56-3:7; 5:13-35; Bederson, ¶¶187-192.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Seidensticker emphasizes that its interface could be employed in any
`
`portable device. Seidensticker at 4:54-57, 22:27-35. It would have been obvious
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) to implement Seidensticker’s user
`
`interface techniques with a portable media player. Bederson, ¶¶193-199. Portable
`
`MP3 players with small screens were known in the prior art.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,332,175 to Birrell (Ex. 1013) describes a “portable audio
`
`player” for storing a large amount (“over 65 hours”) of MP3 audio data in a
`
`hierarchical format including genres, CDs in each genre, and tracks in each CD.
`
`Birrell at 4:38-61. Birrell also discloses a user interface for displaying that
`
`hierarchical table of contents, id. at 4:66 and 5:15-19, and for selecting and playing
`
`or adding the songs to a playlist, id. at 4:54-5:3; Bederson, ¶¶182-186.
`
`While Birrell does not describe its user interface in detail, Seidensticker’s
`
`user interface exactly matches the relevant features in the ’433 patent. It would
`
`have been obvious to employ Seidensticker’s user interface for navigating the
`
`hierarchically-organized songs in Birrell’s portable device. Bederson, ¶¶193-199.
`
`Birrell and Seidensticker together disclose a method in which categories,
`
`subcategories, and items (e.g., songs) are displayed on hierarchically-related
`
`screens and in which songs are accessed for playback or addition to a playlist.
`
`This method would have met all limitations of most of the ‘433 patent’s claims and
`
`is essentially identical to its preferred embodiment. Bederson, ¶¶193-225.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`
`
`An inter partes reexamination of the ’433 patent resulted in cancellation of
`
`almost all of the originally-issued claims of the ’433 patent, including the sole
`
`independent claim. Ex. 1002. Some dependent claims survived because Patent
`
`Owner disqualified three of the four references as prior art, Ex. 1004 at 6136-41,
`
`and the Examiner determined that the sole remaining reference did not, by itself,
`
`sufficiently disclose the user interface features recited by those claims, id. at 6265-
`
`66. The requester of the reexamination withdrew following a settlement, and thus
`
`did not proffer additional prior art or propose additional rejections. Id. at 5970-71.
`
`As demonstrated below, Looney alone, as well as the combination of Birrell
`
`and Seidensticker, each disclose the limitations of many of the extant claims of the
`
`’433 patent, and these references in view of Proehl (Ex. 1011) and/or Johnson (Ex.
`
`1012) disclose the limitations of the remaining claims.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`A decision in this proceeding could affect or be affected by the following
`
`matters (collectively, “the Litigations”):
`
`(1) Patent Owner has asserted the ’433 patent against Petitioners in the U.S.
`
`District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Case No. 2:16-cv-00263.
`
`(2) Patent Owner has asserted the ’433 patent against Petitioners in ITC
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-994.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`
`
`B. Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Petitioners are the sole real parties-in-interest (RPI). Petitioners have sole
`
`control over all aspects of this proceeding and are solely responsible for all costs
`
`and expenses associated with this proceeding.
`
`Patent Owner may question whether Google Inc. (“Google”) should be
`
`identified as an RPI. Google is not an RPI.
`
`In the Litigations, Patent Owner asserts the ’433 patent against products
`
`running Google’s Android operating system that are sold by a number of different
`
`parties, including SoMC-USA (one of the Petitioners). Some, but not all, of the
`
`accused features of SoMC-USA’s accused products relate to software provided by
`
`Google. At least SoMC (another of the Petitioners) has a “Mobile Application
`
`Distribution Agreement” (MADA) with Google that includes an indemnification
`
`clause. Google has intervened in the ITC Investigation.
`
`The indemnification clause of the SoMC MADA is substantively identical to
`
`another Google MADA that the Board addressed under nearly identical
`
`circumstances. In Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Black Hills Media, LLC, IPR2014-00737,
`
`Paper 7 at 3-5 (PTAB 2014) (Ex. 1016), like here, Google intervened in an ITC
`
`investigation in which a patent owner alleged infringement by a party (Samsung)
`
`that sold products running Google software.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`
`
`The Board concluded that Google was not an RPI with respect to an IPR
`
`petition filed by Samsung because the Samsung MADA did not give Google
`
`direction or control over the IPR, Google’s intervention in the ITC investigation
`
`did not demonstrate that Google was able to control the IPR proceeding, and
`
`Samsung’s interests were not identical to Google’s. Ex. 1016 at 3-5.
`
`The circumstances are the same here. The SoMC MADA, which is
`
`substantively identical in all relevant respects to the Samsung MADA, does not
`
`give Google the right to control this IPR proceeding, and Petitioners are pursuing
`
`this IPR to protect their own interests, including interests implicated by Patent
`
`Owner’s accusation that features of SoMC-USA’s products unrelated to Google
`
`software infringe the ’433 patent.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information – § 42.8(b)(3) and (4)
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Randy J. Pritzker, Reg. No. 35,986
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`Michael N. Rader, Reg. No. 52,146
`Robert M. Abrahamsen, Reg. No. 40,886
`Andrew J. Tibbetts, Reg. No. 65,139
`
`Service Information E-mail: RPritzker-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`MRader-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`RAbrahamsen-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`ATibbetts-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
`
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`
`Boston, MA 02210-2206
`
`Telephone: 617-646-8000 Facsimile: 617-646-8646
`
`
`Powers of attorney are submitted with the Petition. Counsel for Petitioners
`
`consents to service of all documents via electronic mail.
`
`III. NOTICE OF FEES PAID
`
`Fees are submitted herewith. If any additional fees are due during the course
`
`of the proceeding, the undersigned authorizes the office to charge fees to the
`
`Deposit Account No. 23/2825.
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioners certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), that the ’433 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting inter partes review as to the claims identified herein.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioners request cancellation of claims 2, 3, 5, 7 and 17-28. The table
`
`below identifies the references, applicable claims, and bases of unpatentability.
`
`Ground Number and Reference(s)
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`1 Looney
`
`2, 3, 5, 7, 17 and 18
`
`2 Looney and Proehl
`
`2, 3 and 19-28
`
`3 Looney, Proehl, and Johnson
`
`23, 24, 27 and 28
`
`4 Birrell and Seidensticker
`
`2, 3, 5, 7, 17 and 18
`
`5 Birrell, Seidensticker, and Proehl
`
`19-28
`
`
`
`6 Birrell, Seidensticker, Proehl, and
`Johnson
`
`23, 24, 27 and 28
`
`7 Birrell, Seidensticker, and Looney
`(and Proehl) (and Johnson)
`
`17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 and
`28
`
`102
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’433 PATENT
`
`A. Technology Overview
`
`The ’433 patent describes a user interface with display screens for
`
`navigating a music library according to a hierarchy. Ex. 1001 at 2:52-63, 11:39-
`
`57. Fig. 10 (reproduced below) illustrates an example of the ’433 patent’s
`
`hierarchy. A first screen for a top level of the hierarchy may include categories
`
`(such as “Albums” and “Artists”), a second screen may include subcategories
`
`within a selected category (such as a list of specific albums within the “Albums”
`
`category), and a third screen may include items within a selected subcategory (such
`
`as a list of tracks on an album). Id. at 8:57-9:37.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 10; Bederson, ¶39.
`
`
`
`Selections in the display screens are used in accessing tracks, either for
`
`playback or for addition to a playlist. The playlist to which tracks are added may
`
`be an “active queue list” of songs. Ex. 1002 at 1:21-23; Bederson, ¶40.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A POSA in the field of the ’433 patent at the time of its invention would
`
`have had at least the equivalent of a bachelor of science degree in computer science
`
`or a similar subject, or two to three years of experience in designing and
`
`implementing user interfaces for portable electronic devices. More education
`
`could substitute for experience, and experience, especially when combined with
`
`training, could substitute for formal education. Bederson, ¶¶36-38.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`
`
`VII. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`Each claim term should be given its broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`consistent with the specification (BRI). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The BRI may
`
`differ from the proper construction under the standards applicable in district court.
`
`A.
`
`“portable media player” – Claim 1 (and all others by dependency)
`
`The Board need not expressly define “portable media player” because any
`
`proper interpretation of this term under the BRI standard would necessarily
`
`encompass the media playing devices of primary references Looney (describing its
`
`media player as “portable” and “mobile,” see Ex. 1009 at 2:58, 12:53-13:62) and
`
`Birrell (“portable audio player,” see Ex. 1013, Abstract). Bederson, ¶47, ¶58.
`
`In the ITC Investigation, the Respondents (including Petitioners), and the
`
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations Staff, argue that “portable media player”
`
`should be construed as “portable media playback device, as distinguished from a
`
`general-purpose device such as a handheld computer or personal digital assistant.”
`
`That construction is supported by Patent Owner’s argument during reexamination
`
`differentiating a “portable media player” from a “handheld computer” and a
`
`“personal digital assistant.” Ex. 1004 at 440, 477-78. The Examiner never
`
`addressed this argument because the Examiner credited Patent Owner’s alleged
`
`earlier date of invention, which removed the references in question from
`
`consideration. Id. at 6136-41.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s argument results in a disclaimer under the Phillips standard
`
`applicable in district court and before the ITC,1 but it does not affect the BRI. The
`
`Federal Circuit recently explained that “the PTO is under no obligation to accept a
`
`claim construction proffered as a prosecution history disclaimer, which generally
`
`only binds the patent owner.” Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973,
`
`978 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Citing Tempo Lighting, the PTAB has declined to narrowly
`
`construe claim terms based on a prosecution disclaimer by a patent owner. Apple
`
`Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2014-00481, Paper 35 at 5-6, 10, 25-26 (PTAB 2014).
`
`Patent Owner’s disclaimer thus does not attach under the BRI, particularly given
`
`that the Examiner never adopted or even reacted to Patent Owner’s argument.
`
`B.
`
`“display screen” – Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 19, 21, 23, 25 and 27 (and all
`others by dependency)
`
`The BRI of “display screen” is “visual content presented on a display at a
`
`point in time.” Bederson, ¶¶48-53.
`
`
`1 Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco P’ship, 778 F.3d 1320, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015) (finding disclaimer: “the interested public has the right to rely on the
`
`inventor’s statements made during prosecution, without attempting to decipher
`
`whether the examiner relied on them, or how much weight they were given”).
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’433 patent refers to the sequential presentation of “a first,
`
`second and third display screen … on the display of a media player.” The
`
`specification makes clear that a change in displayed content results in a new
`
`“screen,” even if the displayed content is substantially the same as the content that
`
`was displayed on the prior “screen.” With reference to Figure 12 (reproduced
`
`below), the specification refers to the different visual contents of the same physical
`
`screen at different moments in time (see elements 180, 182, 184, 186) as respective
`
`“screens.” Ex. 1001 at 10:22-35, 3:44-45. Elements 182 and 184 are referred to as
`
`successive “screens” even though both correspond to the same level of the menu
`
`hierarchy and present largely identical content. Id. at 10:22-35, 3:44-45; Bederson,
`
`¶49.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 12.
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`This construction aligns with the BRI of “display screen” previously
`
`assigned by the Office. The Examiner of an application claiming priority to the
`
`’433 patent interpreted the phrase “at least two display screens” to cover a single
`
`user interface window at two different times, due to changes in the visual content
`
`presented at different times. Ex. 1008 at 206-07, 149. The single window the
`
`Examiner referenced, shown in Fig. 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,760,721, is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`
`
`The Examiner found the visual content of the window at different times to
`
`be different “display screens,” based on changes in the visual content presented in
`
`the right-hand portion of the window triggered by user input provided in the left-
`
`hand portion of the window. Id.; Bederson, ¶¶50-52.
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Moreover, before the ITC, Patent Owner has asserted that the different
`
`“display screens” in the claims can cover a display’s visual content at two different
`
`times even when the content on the two “screens” is largely identical. Regarding
`
`SoMC-USA’s Xperia Z3+ product, Patent Owner has asserted that the “first
`
`display screen” and “second display screen” of claim 1 read on screens with
`
`identical content in the top and bottom portions:
`
`Ex. 1005 at Ex. 5, p. 4.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005 at Ex. 5, p. 5. Patent Owner’s infringement allegations, like the Office’s
`
`prior conclusions and the teachings of the specification, confirm that the BRI of
`
`“display screen” is “visual content presented on a display at a point in time.”
`
`Bederson, ¶53.
`
`VIII. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`This Petition and the supporting evidence demonstrate “a reasonable
`
`likelihood that petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). All of the ’433 patent claims
`
`would have been unpatentable