Paper No. __
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Petitioner
`By: Elisabeth H. Hunt
`Richard F. Giunta
`Randy J. Pritzker
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`Tel: (617) 646-8000
`Fax: (617) 646-8646
`EHunt-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`RPX Corporation,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent No. 7,490,037
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES .................................................................................... viii
`REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST ............................................................................. viii
`RELATED MATTERS .......................................................................................... viii
`COUNSEL AND SERVICE INFORMATION - § 42.8(B)(3) AND (4) .................. x
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
`II. NOTICE OF FEES PAID ................................................................................. 1
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................... 1
`IV.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .......... 1
`V. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW ......................................................................... 3
`VI. THE ‘037 PATENT .......................................................................................... 5
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................................. 6
`VIII. CLAIM INTERPRETATION ........................................................................... 7
`A. “signal” ........................................................................................................ 7
`B. “test signal” .................................................................................................. 7
`C. “test signal generator” ................................................................................. 7
`IX. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ................ 8
`X. CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY ..................................................................................... 8
`A. The ‘037 Patent Is Not Entitled to Its Priority Claim ................................10
`B. Ferriere Discloses All Limitations of Independent Claims 1 and 17
`from Which the Challenged Claims Depend .............................................11
`C. Independent Claims 1 and 17, from Which the Challenged Claims
`Depend, Would Have Been Obvious over Ferriere ...................................20
`D. Ground 1: Claims 5 and 6 Would Have Been Obvious over
`Ferriere in View of Kalra ..........................................................................21
`E. Ground 2: Claims 8, 23, 26, and 30 Would Have Been Obvious
`over Ferriere in View of Schulzrinne ........................................................25
`i. Schulzrinne Is Printed Publication Prior Art .......................................25
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`a. Schulzrinne’s Cataloging and Dissemination Under the
`Department’s Standard Practices Establish It as Prior Art
`Under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) ............................................................ 27
`b. Schulzrinne’s Inclusion in the NCSTRL Electronic
`Library Independently Establishes It as Prior Art Under 35
`U.S.C. §102(a)............................................................................. 29
`c. Pre-1997 Journal Citations Provide Independent Evidence
`of Schulzrinne’s Prior Art Publication Under 35 U.S.C. §§
`102(a) and 102(b) ........................................................................ 30
`ii. Schulzrinne and Ferriere Render Claims 8, 23, 26, and 30
`Obvious................................................................................................31
`F. Ground 3: Claim 22 Would Have Been Obvious over Ferriere in
`View of Hluchyj ........................................................................................37
`G. Ground 4: Claim 27 Would Have Been Obvious over Ferriere in
`View of Riddle ...........................................................................................40
`H. Ground 5: Claims 28 and 30 Would Have Been Obvious over
`Ferriere in View of Barraclough................................................................42
`I. Grounds 6-9: Claims 5-6, 8, 23, 26-28, and 30 Would Have Been
`Obvious over Ferriere and Kudo in Combination with Other
`References .................................................................................................46
`XI. CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................52
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Garrett Corp. V. United States,
`422 F.2d 874 (Ct. Cl. 1970) ..................................................................................28
`
`Hamilton Labs v. Massengill,
`111 F.2d 584 (6th Cir. 1940) .................................................................................28
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897(Fed. Cir. 1986) ........................................................................ 26, 28
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`No. CIV 02CV2060-B CAB, 2007 WL 1877984 (S.D. Cal. June 27, 2007) ......28
`
`Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. AB Fortia,
`774 F.2d 1104 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................................28
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Sols., Inc.,
`698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................30
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(a) ................................................................................. 26, 29, 30, 42
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) ....................................................................................... 11, 22, 26
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(e) ............................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) ..................................................................................................1, 2
`
`35 U.S.C. §120 .........................................................................................................11
`
`35 U.S.C. §133 .........................................................................................................11
`
`35 U.S.C. §311 .........................................................................................................52
`
`35 U.S.C. §314(a) ...................................................................................................... 8
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`iii
`
`

`
`MPEP §711.04(a) .....................................................................................................11
`MPEP §711.04(a) ................................................................................................... ..11
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ................................................................................................. 7
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ............................................................................................... ..7
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.101 ....................................................................................................52
`37 C.F.R. §42.1o1 .................................................................................................. ..52
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) .................................................................................................. 1
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) ................................................................................................ ..1
`
`
`
`iv
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`APPENDIX LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`1205
`1206
`
`1207
`
`1208
`
`1209
`
`1210
`
`1211
`1212
`
`Exhibit Description
`1201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,037
`1202
`Declaration of Schuyler Quackenbush, Ph.D.
`1203
`CV of Schuyler Quackenbush, Ph.D.
`1204
`Amendment filed June 10, 2008, in U.S. Patent Application No.
`11/143,011
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 99/01948
`English translation of International Patent Application Publication No.
`WO 99/01948
`Office Action dated December 2, 2004, in U.S. Patent Application No.
`09/462,049
`Image File Wrapper of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/462,049,
`downloaded from PAIR September 12, 2016
`Webster’s New World Dictionary of Computer Terms, Sixth Edition
`(1997), p. 470, definition of “signal”
`The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third
`Edition (1996), p. 1854, definition of “test”
`U.S. Patent No. 5,835,495 (“Ferriere”)
`GSM 06.10, “GSM Full Rate Speech Transcoding”, Technical Rep.
`Vers. 3.2, ETSI/GSM, February 1992, from File History of U.S. Patent
`No. 5,835,495 (Ferriere)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 5,835,495 (Ferriere)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,319,562 (“Whitehouse”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,953,506 (“Kalra”)
`“Voice Communication Across the Internet: A Network Voice
`Terminal,” CS Technical Report 92-50, University of Massachusetts
`Amherst, dated July 29, 1992 (“Schulzrinne”)
`Declaration of William Richards Adrion, Ph.D.
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler attaching archived URLs from
`www.ncstrl.org and www.cs.umass.edu
`“The impact of scaling on a multimedia connection architecture,”
`Multimedia Systems, Vol. 1, 1993, pp. 2-9, citing Schulzrinne at 8
`“End-to-End Packet Delay and Loss Behavior in the Internet,”
`Computer Communication Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, October 1993, pp.
`289-98, citing Schulzrinne at 298
`“Multimedia Conferencing on Packet Switched Networks: Testing and
`Evaluation,” Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 26, 1994, pp.
`
`1213
`1214
`1215
`1216
`
`1217
`1218
`
`1219
`
`1220
`
`1221
`
`v
`
`

`
`1222
`
`1223
`
`1224
`
`1225
`
`1226
`
`1227
`
`1228
`
`1229
`
`1230
`
`1231
`
`1232
`
`1233
`
`1234
`
`1235
`1236
`1237
`1238
`
`S139-46, citing Schulzrinne at S146
`“Reliable Audio for Use over the Internet,” INET’95 Conference
`Proceedings, June 1995, pp. 171-78, citing Schulzrinne at 177
`“Joint Source/Channel Coding for Multicast Packet Video,” Proceedings
`of the International Conference on Image Processing, October 1995, pp.
`25-28, citing Schulzrinne at 28
`“An Application Level Video Gateway,” Proceedings ACM Multimedia
`’95, November 1995, pp. 255-65, citing Schulzrinne at 264
`“vic: A Flexible Framework for Packet Video,” Proceedings ACM
`Multimedia ’95, November 1995, pp. 511-22, citing Schulzrinne at 522
`“Control Mechanisms for Packet Audio in the Internet,” IEEE Infocom
`’96, Proceedings Vol. 3, March 1996, pp. 232-39, citing Schulzrinne at
`239
`“Interactive Multiuser VEs in the DIVE System,” IEEE MultiMedia,
`Spring 1996, pp. 30-39, citing Schulzrinne at 39
`“Dynamic Video Playout Smoothing Method for Multimedia
`Applicatons,” 1996 IEEE International Conference on Communications,
`Vol. 3, June 1996, pp. 1365-69, citing Schulzrinne at 1369
`“IVOX – The Interactive Voice eXchange Application,” MILCOM 96
`Conference Proceedings, Vol. 3, 1996, pp. 663-68, citing Schulzrinne at
`668
`“Cost-quality tradeoffs in the Internet,” Computer Networks and ISDN
`Systems 28, 1996, pp. 645-51, citing Schulzrinne at 651
`“On retransmission-based error control for continuous media traffic in
`packet-switching networks,” Computer Networks and ISDN Systems
`28, 1996, pp. 719-36, citing Schulzrinne at 736
`“Destination Buffering for Low-Bandwidth Audio Transmissions using
`Redundancy-Based Error Control,” Proceedings 21st IEEE Conference
`on Local Computer Networks, October 1996, pp. 345-54, citing
`Schulzrinne at 354
`“A New Technique for Audio Packet Loss Concealment,” IEEE
`Globecom 1996, November 1996, pp. 48-52, citing Schulzrinne at 52
`“A Low-Delay CELP Coder for the CCITT 16 kb/s Speech Coding
`Standard,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Vol.
`10, No. 5, June 1992, pp. 830-49 (“Chen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,115,429 (“Hluchyj”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,857,189 (“Riddle”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,539,741 (“Barraclough”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,189,543 (“Lin”)
`
`vi
`
`

`
`1239
`1240
`1241
`1242
`1243
`1244
`
`1245
`1246
`
`1247
`
`1248
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,600,313 (“Freedman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,606,044 (“Kudo”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,956,729 (“Goetz”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,014,706 (“Cannon”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,903,261 (“Walsh”)
`“ISO-MPEG-1 Audio: A Generic Standard for Coding of High-Quality
`Digital Audio,” Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 42, No.
`10, October 1994, pp. 780-92 (“Brandenburg”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,996,022 (“Krueger”)
`“Release Notes: RealAudio Player 2.0 for Windows – About the
`RealAudio Player 2.0,”
`https://web.archive.org/web/19970614003735/http://www.real.com/help
`/player/win2.0/about.html, captured June 14, 1997, printed in Exhibit A
`of Affidavit of Christopher Butler (Ex-1248)
`“Release Notes: RealAudio Player 2.0 for Windows – RealAudio Player
`Controls,”
`https://web.archive.org/web/19970614003654/http://www.real.com/help
`/player/win2.0/controls.html, captured June 14, 1997, printed in Exhibit
`A of Affidavit of Christopher Butler (Ex-1248)
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler attaching archived URLs from
`www.real.com
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation (“RPX”) is the sole real party-in-interest in this
`
`proceeding. RPX has not communicated with any client about its intent to contest
`
`the validity of this patent, or about the preparation or filing of this petition. RPX
`
`has complete, unilateral control of all aspects of this proceeding and is also solely
`
`responsible for all costs and expenses associated with this proceeding.
`
`RELATED MATTERS
`
`A decision in this proceeding could affect or be affected by the following
`
`series of cases the Patent Owner filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
`
`Delaware: (i) Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC v. Bank of America
`
`Corporation, No. 1:16cv574; (ii) Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC v.
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al., No. 1:16cv575; (iii) Digital Audio
`
`Encoding Systems, LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al., No. 1:16cv576; (iv)
`
`Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 1:16cv577; (v)
`
`Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC v. International Business Machines
`
`Corporation, No. 1:16cv578; (vi) Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC v. Huawei
`
`Technologies Co., Ltd. et al., No. 1:16cv558; (vii) Digital Audio Encoding
`
`Systems, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 1:16cv559; (viii) Digital Audio
`
`Encoding Systems, LLC v. HTC Corporation et al., No. 1:16cv560; (ix) Digital
`
`Audio Encoding Systems, LLC v. Toshiba Corporation et al., No. 1:16cv561; (x)
`
`viii
`
`

`
`Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., No.
`
`1:16cv562; (xi) Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC v. Nokia Corporation et al.,
`
`No. 1:16cv565; (xii) Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC v. BlackBerry Limited
`
`et al., No. 1:16cv566; (xiii) Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC v. Sony
`
`Corporation, et al., No. 1:16cv567; (xiv) Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC v.
`
`ZTE Corporation et al., No. 1:16cv568; (xv) Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC
`
`v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:16cv489; (xvi) Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC
`
`v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 1:16cv490; (xvii) Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC
`
`v. eBay Inc., No. 1:16cv491; (xviii) Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC v.
`
`Alphabet, Inc., No. 1:16cv492; (xix) Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC v. T-
`
`Mobile USA, Inc., No. 1:16cv493; (xx) Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC v.
`
`Verizon Communications Inc., No. 1:16cv494; (xxi) Digital Audio Encoding
`
`Systems, LLC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, No. 1:16cv495; (xxii) Digital Audio
`
`Encoding Systems, LLC v. Fry's Electronics, Inc., No. 1:16cv481; (xxiii) Digital
`
`Audio Encoding Systems, LLC v. AT&T Inc., No. 1:16cv482; (xxiv) Digital Audio
`
`Encoding Systems, LLC v. Sprint Corporation, No. 1:16cv483; (xxv) Digital Audio
`
`Encoding Systems, LLC v. Target Corporation, No. 1:16cv484; (xxvi) Digital
`
`Audio Encoding Systems, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc., No. 1:16cv485; (xxvii)
`
`Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC v. Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc., No.
`
`1:16cv486; (xviii) Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC v. Samsung Electronics
`
`ix
`
`

`
`Co., Ltd. et al., No. 1:16cv487; (xxix) Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC v.
`
`Apple Inc., No. 1:16cv389.
`
`This patent is also involved in the following IPR proceeding: Unified
`
`Patents, Inc. v. Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC, IPR2016-01710 filed
`
`September 2, 2016, which is presently pending before the Board.
`
`Two other separate petitions for inter partes review of the ‘037 patent are
`
`also being filed concurrently with this petition by RPX – one addressing claims 1-
`
`32, and the other addressing claims 1-4, 7, 9-15, 17-21, 24-25, 29, and 31-32 –
`
`both on different grounds than are presented in this petition. Petitioner requests
`
`that all three petitions be reviewed by the same panel of the Board.
`
`COUNSEL AND SERVICE INFORMATION - § 42.8(B)(3) AND (4)
`
`Elisabeth H. Hunt, Reg. No. 67,336
`Lead Counsel
`Richard F. Giunta, Reg. No. 36,149
`Backup Counsel
`Randy J. Pritzker, Reg. No. 35,986
`Backup Counsel
`Service Information E-mail: EHunt-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
` RGiunta-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 Petitioner
`
`consents to service of all documents via electronic mail.
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`RPX Corporation (“RPX”) requests inter partes review of claims 5-6, 8, 22-
`
`23, 26-28, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 7,490,037 (“the ‘037 patent”) (Ex-1201). The
`
`claimed subject matter was well known before the patent’s filing date. See, e.g.,
`
`Declaration of Schuyler Quackenbush, Ph.D., Ex-1202 (“Quackenbush”), ¶¶25-
`
`303.
`
`II. 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 such fees to
`
`Deposit Account No. 23/2825.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`RPX certifies, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a), that the '037 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that RPX is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review as to the claims identified herein.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`RPX requests cancellation of claims 5-6, 8, 22-23, 26-28, and 30 of the ‘037
`
`patent. The table below identifies the references, applicable claims, and basis for
`
`each ground of unpatentability. Exhibits are cited in this petition as “Ex-12XX.”
`
`Ground Number and Reference(s)
`1 Ferriere (Ex-1211) and Kalra (Ex-1215)
`2 Ferriere (Ex-1211) and Schulzrinne (Ex-1216)
`
`Basis
`Claims
`§103(a)
`5-6
`8, 23, 26, 30 §103(a)
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`22
`27
`28, 30
`5-6
`
`§103(a)
`§103(a)
`§103(a)
`§103(a)
`
`8, 23, 26, 30 §103(a)
`
`27
`
`§103(a)
`
`3 Ferriere (Ex-1211) and Hluchyj (Ex-1235)
`4 Ferriere (Ex-1211) and Riddle (Ex-1236)
`5 Ferriere (Ex-1211) and Barraclough (Ex-1237)
`6 Ferriere (Ex-1211), Kudo (Ex-1240) and Kalra
`(Ex-1215)
`7 Ferriere (Ex-1211), Kudo (Ex-1240) and
`Schulzrinne (Ex-1216)
`8 Ferriere (Ex-1211), Kudo (Ex-1240) and Riddle
`(Ex-1236)
`9 Ferriere (Ex-1211), Kudo (Ex-1240) and
`Barraclough (Ex-1237)
`
`The grounds in this petition are not redundant with each other, nor with the
`
`28, 30
`
`§103(a)
`
`other two petitions being filed concurrently on the ‘037 patent, for three reasons.
`
`First, the grounds address different sets of claims. The table above shows the
`
`different claims addressed by the different grounds in this petition. The two
`
`concurrently filed petitions address still different sets of claims – one addresses
`
`claims 1-32, and another addresses claims 1-4, 7, 9-15, 17-21, 24-25, 29, and 31-
`
`32.
`
`Second, the primary reference (Ferriere) and secondary reference (Kudo),
`
`relied upon herein with respect to the limitations of the independent claims, meet
`
`those limitations – including the claimed “test signal” – in different ways. The
`
`primary reference (Goetz) relied upon in a concurrently filed petition describes a
`
`different system that meets the claims in still different ways. Goetz relates to
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`server-client audio streaming, while Ferriere discloses a teleconferencing
`
`embodiment. Any limitations the Patent Owner may argue are “missing” are likely
`
`to differ for different references/grounds.
`
`Third, if the ‘037 patent were entitled to its priority claim (§X.A infra), then
`
`Ferriere and Goetz would be prior art under §102(e) and could potentially be
`
`antedated. The nearly one-year difference in §102(e) date between Ferriere and
`
`Goetz would make antedating Ferriere significantly more challenging for Patent
`
`Owner than antedating Goetz. The Ferriere grounds set forth in this and one of the
`
`concurrently filed petitions should not be found redundant over the Goetz grounds
`
`in the other concurrently filed petition for this additional reason.
`
`V. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
`The ‘037 patent relates to encoding signals in general, and “in particular
`
`digitized audio signals.” Ex-1201 at 1:1-2; 15:6-7. As discussed in §VIII.A infra,
`
`a signal is a transmission of information. A digitized audio signal is audio
`
`information transmitted as a sequence of binary bits (i.e., zeroes and ones).
`
`Quackenbush ¶15. Digitization involves sampling (converting an analog signal to
`
`discrete samples at a regular sampling rate) and quantization (rounding each
`
`sample to one of a discrete set of values representable by a finite number of bits).
`
`Quackenbush ¶16. After sampling and quantization, the number of bits required to
`
`represent each second of the digitized audio signal (i.e., the “bit rate”) is
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`determined by multiplying the sampling rate by the bits per sample. Quackenbush
`
`¶16.
`
`“Encoding” can refer to the process of compressing a digitized signal into a
`
`lower “encoded bit rate” than the original digitized bit rate, which can be
`
`advantageous for transmission and storage. Quackenbush ¶17. “Encoding” or
`
`“coding” can also refer to “channel coding,” which relates to error correction when
`
`for transmission through a noisy channel. Quackenbush ¶18. Compression-related
`
`encoding is commonly referred to as “source coding” or “source encoding” to
`
`distinguish it from channel coding. Quackenbush ¶18. In modern
`
`communications, data is often transmitted via a network in “packet” form, with a
`
`certain amount of the signal (i.e., a certain number of bits or equivalently a certain
`
`number of seconds of audio) in each packet. Quackenbush ¶19.
`
`When an encoded signal (e.g., audio) is received at a receiving device, it
`
`must be decoded in order to be played for a user to hear. Quackenbush ¶20. Each
`
`encoding algorithm has a corresponding reverse algorithm for undoing the
`
`encoding and thereby decompressing the compressed (encoded) signal.
`
`Quackenbush ¶20. A receiving device can decode and play encoded audio as it is
`
`received (often called “streaming”), or can store the encoded audio for later
`
`decoding. Quackenbush ¶¶21-22. Streaming audio can be played in real time, but
`
`the real-time streaming capabilities of a receiving device can be limited by the
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`speed at which it can receive data. Quackenbush ¶¶22-23. For example, the
`
`receiving device’s modem may have a maximum bit rate at which it is capable of
`
`receiving data. Quackenbush ¶23. If the bit rate of the transmitted encoded audio
`
`is higher than the bit rate at which the receiver can successfully receive, decode,
`
`and play back, then the receiver will not be able to play the streaming audio in real
`
`time, and playback may become interrupted and jerky. Quackenbush ¶23.
`
`To avoid such unsatisfactory listening experiences, many streaming audio
`
`systems allow for encoding at multiple possible bit rates. Quackenbush ¶24. In
`
`such systems, the bit rate at which the audio is encoded at the source (which, as
`
`discussed above, can be determined by appropriate settings of sampling rate, etc.)
`
`is customized to the speed at which the receiving device can receive and play back
`
`the data. Quackenbush ¶24. In general, higher encoded bit rates yield higher
`
`quality audio, but the bit rate should be limited by the receiver’s reception and
`
`decoding rates to avoid jerkiness and pauses. Quackenbush ¶24.
`
`VI. THE ‘037 PATENT
`The ‘037 patent describes and claims a method and apparatus for encoding a
`
`signal (e.g., a digitized audio signal), in which the encoding format used by the
`
`encoding device corresponds to one or more properties of a processing device that
`
`processes the signal. Ex-1201 at 15:6-20; 16:27-39; Quackenbush ¶25. The ‘037
`
`patent describes selecting the encoding format as “in particular” determining the
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`encoding bit rate. Ex-1201 at 4:50-54; Quackenbush ¶25. This is nothing more
`
`than the well-known concept of multiple-bit-rate encoding discussed in §V supra,
`
`in which the encoding format which determines the encoding rate is made to
`
`correspond to one or more properties of the receiving/decoding device, such as that
`
`device’s reception rate or processing power. Quackenbush ¶25. The ‘037 patent
`
`further describes and claims using a test signal transmitted to the processing
`
`device, and detecting at least one property of the processing device, to determine
`
`the encoding format. Ex-1201 at 15:14-20; 16:33-39. During prosecution of the
`
`‘037 patent, the applicant argued for patentability based on the “test signal” claim
`
`limitations. Ex-1204 at 10. However, these limitations in fact are generic to a
`
`number of well-known techniques for ascertaining the limitations of the
`
`receiving/decoding device by which to determine the encoding format in a
`
`multiple-bit-rate encoding system, as demonstrated in the grounds and prior art
`
`references discussed below. Quackenbush ¶25.
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the timeframe of the claimed July
`
`1997 priority date of the ‘037 patent (“POSA”) would have had at least a B.S. in
`
`Electrical Engineering and/or Computer Science or the equivalent, along with at
`
`least two years of experience in developing digital signal encoding systems.
`
`Quackenbush ¶13.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`VIII. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`Each claim term should be given its broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(“BRI”) consistent with the specification. 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b). The BRI for
`
`terms not defined in the specification is the plain and ordinary meaning consistent
`
`with the specification, and those are the meanings applied in this petition.
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1061-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`“signal”
`
`A.
`All claims of the ‘037 patent require various “signal[s].” The plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of “signal” is a transmission of information. Quackenbush ¶31.
`
`The term can encompass a transmitted waveform (e.g., analog or digitized audio),
`
`an encoded bit stream, a data communication (e.g., query, request, response,
`
`notification, etc.), a transmitted data packet, a stream of packets, a bidirectional
`
`communication, and other types of information transmissions. Quackenbush ¶¶32-
`
`33.
`
`“test signal”
`
`B.
`All claims also require a “test signal,” the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`which is a transmission of information transmitted as part of determining the
`
`presence or quality of something. Quackenbush ¶¶34-36.
`
`“test signal generator”
`
`C.
`All claims require a “test signal generator,” whose plain and ordinary
`
`meaning is something that generates a transmission of information transmitted as
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`part of determining the presence or quality of something. Quackenbush ¶¶37-38;
`
`§VIII.B supra.
`
`IX. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`This petition and the supporting evidence (including Dr. Quackenbush’s
`
`declaration) 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). The '037 patent’s claims 5-6, 8, 22-23, 26-28, and 30 are obvious over
`
`the prior art relied upon in this petition, as explained below and by Dr.
`
`Quackenbush (Ex-1202), an expert with over 30 years’ experience in digital audio
`
`encoding. See Ex-1203; Quackenbush ¶¶3-9.
`
`X. CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY
`
`The ‘037 patent includes independent claims 1 and 17, from which the
`
`claims challenged in this petition depend. Claim 1 is reproduced below. The
`
`letters in brackets preceding the claim elements (e.g., [A]) are used throughout this
`
`petition as shorthand references for those elements.
`
`1. A method of encoding signals, in particular digitized audio signals, the
`
`method comprising the steps of:
`
`[A] providing an encoding device for encoding a signal in an encoding
`
`format;
`
`[B] providing a processing device for processing the encoded signal; and
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`[C] providing a control device for determining the encoding format,
`
`[D] wherein the encoding format corresponds to at least one property of
`
`the processing device, and [E] wherein the control device determines the
`
`encoding format by carrying out at least the following steps:
`
`[F] transmitting a test signal to the processing device, wherein the
`
`test signal is transmitted by a test signal generator of the control
`
`device; and
`
`[G] detecting at least one property of the processing device.
`
`Claim 17’s preamble recites, “Apparatus for encoding signals comprising:”.
`
`The body of claim 17 is identical to that of claim 1, except that claim 17 omits the
`
`“providing” term at the beginning of elements [A], [B], and [C].
`
`Elements [A-D] of claims 1 and 17 map to well-known components of
`
`multiple-bit-rate encoding systems as described in §V supra. Quackenbush ¶¶28-
`
`29. Elements [E-G] are generic to a number of test signal types and techniques
`
`known in the prior art. Quackenbush ¶29. The primary reference (Ferriere) and
`
`one secondary reference (Kudo) relied upon herein disclose systems that use
`
`different types of test signals, each meeting elements [E-G] of the ‘037 patent
`
`claims. §§X.B-I infra.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`A. The ‘037 Patent Is Not Entitled to Its Priority Claim
`As explained below, the ‘037 patent’s priority claim is defective due to lack
`
`of copendency between the ‘037 patent’s application and its parent, such that the
`
`‘037 patent is only entitled to its own application’s 2005 filing date, and not to its
`
`1997 claimed priority date.
`
` Ex-1205 is the publication dated January 14, 1999, (“the PCT publication”)
`
`of International Patent Application No. PCT/EP98/03981 (“the PCT application”).
`
`That PCT application entered the national stage as U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`09/462,049 (“the parent ‘049 application”), which is the parent of the ‘037 patent.
`
`The ‘037 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 11/143,011 (“the ‘037
`
`patent’s application”) which was filed on June 2, 2005, as a continuation of the
`
`parent ‘049 application. Ex-1201, front page and 1:7-11.
`
`Six months earlier, on December 2, 2004, the parent ‘049 application
`
`received an Office Action setting a reply period that expired on March 2, 2005 –
`
`three months after the Office Action’s mailing date. Ex-1207, Office Action
`
`Summary. The applicant did not file any response, nor any petition or fee for
`
`extension of time (see Ex-1208, image file wrapper of the parent ‘049 application,
`
`showing no response or extension of time filed after Office Action of December 2,
`
`2004); therefore, the parent ‘049 application became abandoned as of the
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`expiration of the reply period on March 2, 2005. 35 U.S.C. §133; MPEP
`
`§711.04(a).
`
`The parent ‘049 application thus became abandoned three months earlier
`
`(March 2, 2005) than the ‘037 patent’s application was filed (June 2, 2005), and
`
`the two applications were never copending. Because of this lack of copendency,
`
`the ‘037 patent is not entitled to the earlier priority date of the parent ‘049
`
`application, but is only entitled to its own filing date of June 2, 2005. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§120.
`
`B.
`
`Ferriere Discloses All Limitations of I