UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`I.M.L. SLU
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WAG ACQUISITION, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,122,141
`
`Issue Date: February 21, 2012
`
`Title: STREAMING MEDIA BUFFERING SYSTEM
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Number Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 8,122,141 to Price (the “’141 Patent”)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,822,524 to Chen et al. (“Chen”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,389,473 to Carmel et al. (“Carmel”)
`
`Willebeek-LeMair, et al., “Bamba – Audio and Video
`Streaming Over the Internet,” IBM Journal of
`Research and Development¸ Vol. 42, No. 2, March
`1998 (“Willebeek”)
`International Standard ISO/IEC 11172-1, “Information
`Technology – Coding of moving pictures and associated
`audio for digital storage media at up to about 1,5 Mbit/s –
`Part 1: Systems,” August 1993 (“ISO-11172-1”)
`International Standard ISO/IEC 11172-2, “Information
`Technology – Coding of moving pictures and associated
`audio for digital storage media at up to about 1,5 Mbit/s –
`Part 2: Video,” August 1993 (“ISO-11172-2”)
`International Standard ISO/IEC 11172-3, “Information
`Technology – Coding of moving pictures and associated
`audio for digital storage media at up to about 1,5 Mbit/s –
`Part 3: Audio,” August 1993 (“ISO-11172-3”)
`Declaration of Dr. Gareth Loy in Support of Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent 8,122,141
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Gareth Loy
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 5,822,524 to Chen et al.
`("Chen File History”)
`
`Prosecution history for U.S. Patent No. 8,122,141
`
`Petitioner’s Waiver of Service
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... ..1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest ........................................................................ .. 1
`
`Related Matters .................................................................................... ..1
`
`Counsel and Service Information ........................................................ ..5
`
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................ ..5
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`VI.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’ 141 PATENT AND ADMITTED PRIOR ART ..... ..8
`
`VII.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE NEWLY APPLIED PRIOR ART .......................... .. 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Chen ................................................................................................... ..1 1
`
`Carmel ............................................................................................... .. 15
`
`C. Willebeek ........................................................................................... .. 17
`
`VIII.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ ..2O
`
`B.
`
`Prior Constructions ............................................................................ ..2O
`
`IX.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... ..22
`
`EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY ............... ..22
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`REQUESTED RELIEF ................................................................................... 1
`I.
`!—1
`REQUESTED RELIEF ................................................................................. ..1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 5
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 5
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 6
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................. ..6
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES
`V.
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 7
`REVIEW ........................................................................................................ ..7
`A.
`Reasonable Likelihood Of Invalidity .................................................... 7
`A.
`Reasonable Likelihood Of Invalidity .................................................. ..7
`B.
`Review Is Appropriate In View Of Prior IPRs ..................................... 7
`B.
`Review Is Appropriate In View Of Prior IPRs ................................... ..7
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’141 PATENT AND ADMITTED PRIOR ART ....... 8
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE NEWLY APPLIED PRIOR ART ............................ 11
`A.
`Chen ..................................................................................................... 11
`B.
`Carmel ................................................................................................. 15
`C. Willebeek ............................................................................................. 17
`D.
`ISO-11172 (Parts 1-3) ......................................................................... 18
`D.
`ISO-11172 (Parts 1-3) ....................................................................... ..18
`E.
`Chen File History ................................................................................ 19
`E.
`Chen File History .............................................................................. .. 19
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 20
`A.
`Independent Claims Preambles ........................................................... 20
`A.
`Independent Claims Preambles ......................................................... ..20
`B.
`Prior Constructions .............................................................................. 20
`C. Newly Proposed Constructions ........................................................... 21
`C.
`Newly Proposed Constructions ......................................................... ..21
`IX. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 22
`X.
`EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY ................. 22
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-16, 18-20, 23-24 and 26-28 Are
`A.
`Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-16, 18-20, 23-24 and 26-28 Are
`Anticipated By Chen ........................................................................... 22
`Anticipated By Chen ......................................................................... ..22
`1.
`Claims 1, 10 and 24 .................................................................. 22
`1.
`Claims 1, 10 and 24 ................................................................ ..22
`2.
`Claim 19 .................................................................................... 43
`
`2.
`
`Claim 19 .................................................................................. ..43
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Claims 2, 11 and 28 .................................................................. 45
`3.
`Claims 4, 13, 23 and 26 ............................................................ 46
`4.
`Claims 5 and 14......................................................................... 46
`5.
`Claims 6 and 15......................................................................... 46
`6.
`Claims 7, 16 and 27 .................................................................. 47
`7.
`Claims 9, 18 and 20 .................................................................. 47
`8.
`B. Ground 2: Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-16, 18, 24 and 26-28 Are
`Obvious Over Chen In View Of Chen File History ............................ 47
`C. Ground 3: Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-18, 21, 24 and 26-28 Are Obvious
`Over Chen In View Of Carmel ........................................................... 51
`1.
`Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-16, 18, 24 and 26-28 ........................ 51
`2.
`Claims 8, 17 and 21 .................................................................. 52
`D. Ground 4: Claims 1-18, 21-22 and 24-28 Are Obvious Over Chen
`In View Of Chen File History and Willebeek ..................................... 53
`1.
`Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-16, 18, 24 and 26-28 ........................ 53
`2.
`Claims 8, 17 and 21 .................................................................. 55
`3.
`Claims 3, 12, 22 and 25 ............................................................ 57
`Ground 5: Claims 3, 12, 22 and 25 Are Obvious Over Chen In
`View Of Chen File History, ISO-11172 and Willebeek ..................... 59
`XI. CONCLUSION AND STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF
`REQUESTED ................................................................................................ 61
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 62
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 63
`
`E.
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`REQUESTED RELIEF
`I.M.L. SLU (“Petitioner”) petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 et seq. of claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,122,141 (Ex. 1001), assigned to WAG Acquisition, LLC (“Patent Owner”).
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1-28 of the ‘141 Patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and requests that an IPR be instituted and a final
`
`determination of the unpatentability of these claims be rendered.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`The real party-in-interest for this Petition is I.M.L. SLU.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’141 Patent is asserted in nine pending federal district court actions,
`
`listed below. Petitioner is a defendant in the first listed action.
`
`(1) WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Sobonito Investments, Ltd. et al., Case No.
`
`2:14-cv-1661-ES-JAD (D.N.J.); (2) WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Multi Media, LLC et
`
`al., Case No. 2:14-cv-2340-ES-JAD (D.N.J.); (3) WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Data
`
`Conversions, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-2345-ES-JAD (D.N.J.); (4) WAG
`
`Acquisition, LLC v. Flying Crocodile, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-2674-ES-MAH
`
`(D.N.J.); (5) WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Gattyàn Group S.à r.l. et al., Case No. 2:14-
`
`cv- 2832-ES-JAD (D.N.J.); (6) WAG Acquisition, LLC v. FriendFinder Networks
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`Inc. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-3456-ES-JAD (D.N.J.); (7) WAG Acquisition, LLC v.
`
`Vubeology, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-4531-ES-JAD (D.N.J.); (8) WAG
`
`Acquisition, LLC v. Gamelink International Limited et al. Case No. 2:15-cv-3416
`
`(D.N.J.); and (9) WAG Acquisition LLC v. WebPower, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-
`
`cv-03581 (D.N.J). One other related litigation, WAG Acquisition, LLC v. MFCXY,
`
`Inc. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-3196-ES-MAH (D.N.J.), has been dismissed.
`
`The following index identifies other IPR proceedings for the ’141 Patent, as
`
`well as for related patents: U.S. Patent No. 8,327,011 (the “’011 patent”), U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,185,611 (the “’611 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 8,364,839 (the “’839
`
`Patent”). The ‘141 Patent is a parent of the ‘011 Patent. The ‘141 Patent and the
`
`‘611 Patent are sister applications which are both continuations of U.S. Patent No.
`
`2
`
`7,716,358.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Number
`
`Current Status
`
`Petition Number
`
`(Petition Date)
`
`8,122,141
`
`Claims 1-28 challenged, petition denied.
`
`IPR2015-01037
`
`(Apr. 14, 2015)
`
`8,122,141
`
`Claims 1-28 challenged, petition pending.
`
`IPR2016-01238
`
`(June 21, 2016)
`
`8,185,611
`
`Claims 1-18 challenged, petition denied.
`
`IPR2015-01035
`
`(Apr. 14, 2015)
`
`8,185,611
`
`Claims 1-18 challenged, petition pending.
`
`IPR2016-01162
`
`(June 6, 2016)
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Number
`
`Current Status
`
`Petition Number
`
`(Petition Date)
`
`8,327,011
`
`Claims 1-4 challenged, petition denied.
`
`IPR2015-01033
`
`(Apr. 14, 2015)
`
`8,327,011
`
`Claims 1-4 challenged, petition pending
`
`IPR2016-01161
`
`(June 6, 2016)
`
`8,364,839
`
`Claims 1-21 challenged, trial instituted for claims 1,
`
`IPR2015-01036
`
`(Apr. 14, 2015)
`
`3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, 20 and 21, petition
`
`denied for claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 16 and 19.
`
`8,364,839
`
`Claims 1-21 challenged, petition pending.
`
`IPR2016-01239
`
`(June 21, 2016)
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`Counsel:
`David R. Yohannan (Reg. No. 37,480) (Lead)
`
`Beth D. Jacob (Backup) (pro hac to be filed)
`
`Address:
`
`Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
`
`3050 K Street, N.W.
`
`Washington, D.C. 20007
`
`Phone and Fax:
`
`P: (202) 342-8400, F: (202) 342-8451
`
`Please send all correspondence to the lead counsel at the address shown
`
`above. Petitioner consents to service by email at: dyohannan@kelleydrye.com and
`
`DCpatentdocket@kelleydrye.com. A Power of Attorney is filed concurrently
`
`herewith under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b). The Office is authorized to charge the fees
`
`set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) to Deposit Account No. 03-2469, as well as any
`
`additional fees that might be due in connection with this Petition.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the patent for which review is sought is
`
`available for Inter Partes Review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting an Inter Partes Review challenging the patent claims on the
`
`Grounds identified in the Petition. In the co-pending litigation, Petitioner’s waiver
`
`of service was filed August 24, 2015 (Ex. 1012). “[I]n the situation where the
`
`petitioner waives service of a summons, the one year time period [under 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`315(b)] begins on the date on which such a waiver is filed.” Motorola Mobility
`
`LLC v. Arnouse, IPR2013-00010, Paper 20 at 6 (PTAB Jan. 30, 2013) (informative
`
`decision); see also Brinkmann Corporation v. A&J Manufacturing, LLC, Case No.
`
`IPR2015-00056, Paper 10 at 6-7 (PTAB, Mar. 23, 2015) (citing additional cases).
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner respectfully requests that Claims 1-28 of the ’141 Patent (Ex.
`
`1001) be canceled based on the following Grounds of Unpatentability, set forth and
`
`explained in detail in the following sections:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-16, 18-20, 23-24 and 26-28 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Chen (Ex. 1002).
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-16, 18, 24 and 26-28 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Chen (Ex. 1002) in view of Chen File History
`
`(Ex. 1010).
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-18, 21, 24 and 26-28 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Chen (Ex. 1002) in view of Carmel (Ex. 1003).
`
`Ground 4: Claims 1-18, 21-22 and 24-28 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) as obvious over Chen (Ex. 1002) in view of Chen File History (Ex. 1010)
`
`and Willebeek (Ex. 1004).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`Ground 5: Claims 3, 12, 22 and 25 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`obvious over Chen (Ex. 1002) in view of Chen File History (Ex. 1010), ISO-11172
`
`(Ex. 1005, 1006, 1007) and Willebeek (Ex. 1004).
`
`V. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. Reasonable Likelihood Of Invalidity
`A petition for Inter Partes Review must demonstrate “a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). This Petition meets this threshold.
`
`All of the claims 1-28 of the ’141 Patent are rendered invalid by the prior art as
`
`explained below in the proposed Grounds of Unpatentability. Specific motivation
`
`or suggestion to combine the references is provided herein and in the
`
`accompanying Declaration of Dr. Gareth Loy (Ex. 1008).
`
`B. Review Is Appropriate In View Of Prior IPRs
`The primary reference relied upon in this petition, Chen, was included in a
`
`prior IPR petition for the ‘141 Patent, IPR 2016-01238, which was filed by another
`
`party and which is pending. For the reasons below, however, Petitioner
`
`respectfully submits that the Board should not deny this petition as duplicative
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`First, with respect to Grounds 2-5, Petitioner here relies upon the
`
`combination of Chen with different prior art than used in the prior pending IPR.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`Second, the PTAB has acknowledged that, in determining whether to
`
`exercise its discretion under 325(d), “we take into account the identity of the
`
`parties—in particular, whether the second petition is filed by the same party as the
`
`first.” Ube Maxell Co., Ltd. v. Celgard LLC, Case IPR2015-01511, Paper 10 at 12
`
`(PTAB Jan. 7, 2016). Here, Petitioner is not the same party, and is not a party-in-
`
`interest to the previously filed action. Id. at 13 (citing Square, Inc. v. Protegrity
`
`Corp., Case CBM2014-00182, Paper 16 at 8 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2015).
`
`Third, the PTAB has acknowledged that “we have taken into account the
`
`potential prejudice to the petitioner if the second petition is denied institution.”
`
`Here, the potential prejudice is great: Petitioner’s statutory bar date under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b) is August 24, 2016. If the parties to the still-pending IPR settle,
`
`and the IPR is dismissed, Petitioner will be barred from re-filing its petition. The
`
`present petition is Petitioner’s only option for relief at the PTAB.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’141 PATENT AND ADMITTED PRIOR ART
`The ’141 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 12/800,152, filed
`
`on May 10, 2010. The ’141 Patent claims priority, through a series of continuation
`
`and continuation-in-part applications, on Provisional Application No. 60/231,997,
`
`filed on September 12, 2000. The earliest possible priority date of the claims of the
`
`’141 Patent is September 12, 2000.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`The ’141 Patent is directed to methods and systems for sending streaming
`
`media, such as audio or video files composed of a plurality of time-sequenced data
`
`elements from a server to a user computer via the Internet. Ex. 1001, ’141 Patent,
`
`4:39-41; 10:18-22.
`
`
`
`In order to obtain streaming media, it was known prior to the ‘141 Patent for
`
`a user to employ a media player software application to hear or view an audio
`
`and/or video data stream. See id., 2:50-54. These data streams were known to be
`
`sent via the Internet and to use buffering. See id., 3:54-60. Internet bandwidth
`
`limitations, however, required pre-buffering of the initial data elements of the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`streamed media prior to the start of playback. According to the ‘141 Patent,
`
`buffering of 10-20 seconds of streaming media was required at the media player
`
`before playback began in prior art systems. See id., 2:46-56. If there were gaps in
`
`the receipt of audio/video data after playback was started, due to Internet slowness,
`
`the buffer associated with the media player would deplete causing playback to
`
`stop. See id., 2:64-3:7.
`
`The ‘141 Patent purports to provide a solution to the problem presented by
`
`“dropouts,” i.e., interruptions in the continuous listening or viewing of audio and
`
`video streams. However, the presumed prior art deficiency concerning available
`
`pre-buffering techniques that the ‘141 Patent invention purports to remedy had
`
`already been solved. See Ex. 1008, Loy Decl., ¶¶ 45-47. Specifically, the ‘141
`
`Patent incorrectly asserts that a problem existed because it was only known (at the
`
`time) to transmit audio and video data at the rate it was to be played back on the
`
`associated media player (see Ex. 1002, Chen, 2:50-63) and therefor there was (1)
`
`need for a 10-20 second delay at the outset of playback to fill the media player
`
`buffer, and (2) no way to refill the buffer without interruption once it was
`
`completely depleted. See id., 2:63-3:32. Indeed, the ‘141 Patent expressly (and
`
`incorrectly) states that its invention “is distinctly different from prior art in which
`
`media data is only sent from the server to the user computer at the rate at which it
`
`is to be played out.” Id., 6:27-30 (emphasis added); Ex. 1008, Loy Decl., ¶ 46.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`The ‘141 Patent is also directed to providing “a system for distributing via
`
`the Internet streaming media composed of a plurality of time-sequenced data
`
`elements.” Id., 4:54-56. These sequential data elements are identified by serial
`
`numbers which permit the user’s computer to keep track of, and request, specific
`
`data elements that are required for playback. Id., 8:36-52.
`
`The ‘141 Patent invention’s use of “faster than playback rate” transmission
`
`of streaming media data elements at initial playback, and sequential serial numbers
`
`for identification of such data elements was well-known in the prior art. Ex. 1008,
`
`Loy Decl., ¶¶ 46, 95.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE NEWLY APPLIED PRIOR ART
`A. Chen
`Chen (Ex. 1002) issued on October 13, 1998, and is prior art under at least
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b). It was not cited during original prosecution.
`
`With reference to Fig. 1 of Chen, a client machine (e.g., computer) 20 is
`
`connected to a server 21 via data connections 5 and 6 over a computer network so
`
`that multimedia files may be retrieved at the client machine from the server. See
`
`id., 4:65-5:5. The client machine 20 has three interacting processes: the client
`
`agent 30 which interfaces with the network interface 3 and the multimedia
`
`application 4 in the client machine. Id., 5:5-8. The client agent 30 maintains a
`
`packet buffer 31 as a cache storage for multimedia data. Id., 5:20-22.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`The server 21 has three component processes: the server control 1 which
`
`interfaces with the storage subsystem 12 and with the network interface 2. Id.,
`
`5:27-29. Similar to the packet buffer 31 in the client agent 30, a stream buffer 11
`
`in the server control 1 holds the data that has been read from the storage subsystem
`
`12. Id., 5:30-32.
`
`The packet buffer 33 stores data packets until the multimedia application 4
`
`requests that they be delivered to it. Id., 5:57-59. If the packet buffer 33 does not
`
`have the requested data available, the client controller 36 signals the command
`
`processor 37 to send a command packet request to the server control for immediate
`
`retrieval of the requested data. Id., 5:59-64.
`
`"Water Marks" in the packet buffer 33 on the client side regulate the server's
`
`transmission rate. See id., 6:7-15. Three transmission modes are defined:
`
`NORMAL, RUSH, and PAUSE. Id. Based on the amount of data in the packet
`
`buffer 33, the client agent 30 decides which is the appropriate mode. Id. The
`
`client agent 30 changes the transmission mode based on a series of rules, explained
`
`using a “water mark” and bucket of water analogy. See id., 6:14-19. The client
`
`agent 30 packet buffer 31 is analogous to a water bucket and the multimedia data
`
`packets in the packet buffer are analogous to water that flows into and out of the
`
`bucket. See id., 6:19-54. If the data in the buffer 31 of the client agent 30 is below
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`a selected standard ("water mark"), the transmission rate is increased; if above a
`
`selected standard it is decreased. Id., 4:41-44.
`
`Fig. 3, reproduced below, illustrates the structure of the packet buffer 33,
`
`which includes one or more data packets (each having a packet header 52 and
`
`multimedia data 60) organized into one or more video frames. See id., 6:55-57.
`
`
`
`The Chen invention would have been implemented by a POSITA to initially
`
`transmit data packets in RUSH mode. Ex. 1008, Loy Decl., ¶¶ 52-53, 98-99. The
`
`transmission mode is set to “Mode=RUSH” when “a low amount of data exists in
`
`the client agent’s packet buffer (33).” Ex. 1002, Chen, 10:14-15. Initially, when
`
`playback is first selected so as to trigger initial transmission of a data file, the Chen
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`packet buffer has a low amount (i.e., zero) of data. Initial transmission in RUSH
`
`mode is further indicated by Claims 4 and 5 of Chen which specify (a) selecting 1-
`
`5 video frames to be stored within the client agent packet buffer, and (b) increasing
`
`the transmission rate (i.e., transitioning from NORMAL to RUSH mode) if the
`
`number of frames in the buffer is below the selected range. Id., 11:8-16. In RUSH
`
`mode, data is transmitted as fast as possible. Id., 12:26-27; 13:62-64 (claims 18,
`
`29). Since Chen starts with no data in the client agent buffer, a POSITA would
`
`have started the Chen system in RUSH mode. Ex. 1008, Loy Decl., ¶¶ 52-53.
`
`Chen also discloses information that informs a POSITA that “RUSH mode,”
`
`whether occurring initially or later, is at a transmission rate more rapid than
`
`playback rate. Id., ¶¶ 52-53, 98-99. When the amount of data in the packet buffer
`
`(water in the bucket) crosses from below the lower water mark to above it,
`
`transmission switches from RUSH mode to NORMAL mode. Ex. 1002, Chen,
`
`6:52-54. In NORMAL mode, frame level pacing is provided (id., 10:3-4) – i.e.,
`
`transmission at the playback rate. If the amount of data falls below the low water
`
`mark, transmission changes back to RUSH mode. Id., 6:42-47.
`
`Chen discloses assigning packet sequence numbers (serial identifiers) to the
`
`data packets, which is the “packet sequence number of the last received packet”
`
`making up the streaming media. See id., 6:55-7:2; 7:24-32; Ex. 1008, Loy Decl., ¶
`
`97. The client agent uses packet sequence numbers to maintain a list of lost
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`packets. See Ex. 1002, Chen, 7:33-35. The client agent may send a
`
`“retransmission request” for lost packets to the server control. See id., 7:35-39.
`
`B. Carmel
`Carmel (Ex. 1003) was filed on March 24, 1999, and is therefore prior art
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). It was not cited during original prosecution, but
`
`is cited in IPR2016-01238 concerning the ‘141 Patent.
`
`Carmel discloses a method for real-time media streaming from a server to a
`
`plurality of client computers over the Internet. Id., 2:1-21. Carmel discloses
`
`dividing the media data into slices, each having a unique index (id., Fig. 3A; 7:18-
`
`35) and allowing the user to select the starting point of the media using a slider,
`
`which sends requests to the server to provide the associated media slices. Id., 8:17-
`
`31; 10:42-54; Fig 3C. The Carmel broadcasts include real-time “live broadcast
`
`transmission[s].” Id., 12:54-58.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`With regard to Fig. 2 of Carmel, reproduced above, “[c]omputer 34
`
`preferably receives audiovisual input from input devices 22 [for example, a video
`
`camera and/or microphone]. . .” Id., 1:25-26; 6:32-33. “The clients download the
`
`data stream from the server, preferably using an Internet protocol, as well, most
`
`preferably the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), or alternatively, using other
`
`protocols, such as UDP or RTP.” Id., 2:11-15.
`
`In Carmel, the transmission rate of multimedia data from the server to client
`
`may be “generally equal to or faster than the rate at which the data are generated at
`
`the transmitting computer,” i.e., generally equal to or faster than the playback rate
`
`of the multimedia data. Id., 2:51-59 (emphasis added); Ex. 1008, Loy Decl., ¶¶ 63,
`
`110. Carmel also discloses that media data files are “uploaded to a server at an
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`upload rate generally equal to the data rate of the stream, such that the one or more
`
`client computers can download the sequence over the network from the server at a
`
`download rate generally equal to the data rate.” Ex. 1003, Carmel, Abstract.
`
`C. Willebeek
`Willebeek (Ex. 1004), was published in the IBM Journal of Research and
`
`Development, Volume 42 No. 2 in March 1998 and qualifies as prior art under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Ex. 1004, Willebeek, 269; Ex. 1008, Loy Decl., ¶ 73.
`
`Willebeek was not cited during original prosecution, but is cited in IPR2016-01238
`
`concerning the ‘141 Patent.
`
`Willebeek discloses a method of displaying streamed digital video data,
`
`including live video, on a client computer using buffers at the client and server.
`
`See Ex. 1004, Willebeek, 269, 277-78, Fig. 6. Willebeek also discloses that
`
`“[s]treaming media requires that data be transmitted from a server to a client at a
`
`sustained bit rate that is high enough to maintain continuous and smooth playback
`
`at the receiving client station.” Id., 269. (emphasis added). Even at lower bit rates,
`
`“continuous playback” was the goal of Willibeek. Id., 270. The overarching goal
`
`of Willebeek, even when connections were slow, was for “the file [to be] played
`
`once uninterrupted playback can be ensured.” Id.
`
`Willebeek also teaches that it is appropriate in some circumstances to trade
`
`frame rate for frame quality (bits per frame) while maintaining a constant average
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`bit rate to provide smoother motion or sharper images, as appropriate, depending
`
`on the content and scene changes in the video. Id., 273. This feature of Willebeek
`
`indicates it could be used to modify and trade the constant frame rate of Chen for
`
`increased frame quality and a constant average bit rate, so as to provide sharper
`
`images. Ex. 1008, Loy Decl., ¶ 81.
`
`While Willebeek discloses a system used for stored video, such as for “a
`
`variety of education and training applications” (like Chen, see Ex. 1002, Chen,
`
`2:21-25), it may also be used to transmit live video broadcasts. Ex. 1004,
`
`Willebeek, 277. The live Willebeek “system consists of three primary components
`
`(as illustrated in Figure 6): an audio/video capture station, an audio/video reflector,
`
`and an audio/video playback station” that use a TCP/IP connections, as in Chen.
`
`Id., 277-78. A POSITA would have found it obvious to use the Chen system to
`
`transmit the live broadcasts of Willebeek. Ex. 1008, Loy Decl., ¶¶ 82-83, 119-133.
`
`ISO-11172 (Parts 1-3)
`
`D.
`ISO-11172 (Parts 1-3) (collectively “ISO-11172”) were published on August
`
`1, 1993 and are therefore prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Ex. 1005, 1;
`
`1006, 1; 1007, 1. ISO-11172 was not cited during original prosecution, but is cited
`
`in IPR2016-01238 concerning the ‘141 Patent.
`
`ISO-11172 is the specification of the international standard for the encoding
`
`and decoding of audio and video streams, commonly known as MPEG-1. Ex.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`1008, Loy Decl., ¶¶ 86-87. ISO-11172 was a well-known document that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of prior to September 12, 2000.
`
`Id.
`
`E. Chen File History
`Chen File History (Ex. 1010) has previously been determined by the Board
`
`to constitute prior art relative to a Price patent credited with a priority date of
`
`September 12, 2000 and thus is prior art as to the ‘141 Patent. See IPR2015-01035,
`
`Paper 8, 18.
`
`Chen File History includes a declaration by the inventor of Chen and
`
`documentation of the commercial embodiment of the claimed system in Chen.
`
`Notably, Chen File History discloses the use of RUSH mode when first opening a
`
`file. See Ex. 1010, Chen File History, ChenFH086; Ex. 1008, Loy Decl., ¶¶ 90,
`
`104. Use of RUSH mode results in the Chen client agent or media player receiving
`
`media data elements at a rate more rapid than the rate at which the media data
`
`elements are to be played out. Id. Specifically, Chen discloses use of a QVS
`
`Client Server Protocol that “Read data from disk and rush them to [Client Agent]”.
`
`In Chen File History, when NORMAL mode is used, the server control
`
`“transmit[s] data according to time and player's playout rate,” i.e., at a playback
`
`rate. Ex. 1010, Chen File History, ChenFH086; Ex. 1008, Loy Decl., ¶ 88.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim is afforded the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears” in an IPR. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`With one exception, Petitioner proposes, for purposes of this IPR only, that the
`
`claim terms of the ’141 Patent take on their ordinary and customary meaning that
`
`the terms would have to a POSITA without resort to formal claim construction
`
`analysis.
`
`The district court in the above-referenced related matters has not issued a
`
`claim construction order.
`
`Independent Claims Preambles
`
`A.
`Whether the preambles of independent claims 1, 10, 19 and 24 are limiting
`
`or not, Petitioner has specifically identified where in the prior art the preamble
`
`elements exist.
`
`Prior Constructions
`B.
`In a prior Inter Partes Review proceeding for the ’141 Patent, IPR2015-
`
`01037, the Board issued a Decision Denying Institution that did not
`
`construe any claim terms. However, in that IPR the Board noted t