`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DECLARATION OF BRAYDEN J. WONG
`
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I, Brayden J. Wong, hereby declare and state the following:
`
`1.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts and professional opinions set
`
`forth in this declaration and, if called to testify as a witness, could and would
`
`competently do so under oath.
`
`2.
`
`I am an independent expert at least in computer, electrical
`
`engineering, automation, and communication technologies. My compensation is
`
`not dependent upon the outcome of the proceedings.
`
`3. My CV is attached (Ex. 2023).
`
`4.
`
`I was asked to review US Patent 7,480,484 (“Nam”), US Patent
`
`6,781,635 (“Takeda”), US Patent publication 2004/0223614 (Seaman), along
`
`with certain statements made by HTC America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and Dr.
`
`Kevin Almeroth1 (“Almeroth”), and PTAB’s institution decisions concerning
`
`1 Citations to Almeroth’s Declaration (Ex. 1003) herein are to the Declaration
`
`submitted
`
`in IPR2017-00875, however,
`
`the same analysis applies
`
`to
`
`corresponding paragraphs of Almeroth’s opinions in other declarations
`Page 1 of 95
`
`VIS EXHIBIT 2007
`
`
`
`the validity of US Patents 7,899,492 (‘492); 8,050,711 (‘711); 8,712,471 (‘471);
`
`8,903,451 (‘451); 8,948,814 (‘814); 9,118,794 (‘794); 9,286,853 (‘853); and
`
`9,355,611 (‘611) (“Subject Patent(s)”, “Patent”, “Patents”), and opine as to their
`
`accuracy.
`
`5.
`
`In my opinion a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) in
`
`regards to the patents discussed herein, would have had at least a bachelor's
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering and at least 2 years of experience related to
`
`communications at the relevant time period of the invention, or be someone
`
`who had attained comparable knowledge through direct work experience in the
`
`field.
`
`6.
`
`I adopt Dr. Melendez’s opinion (Ex. 2003) since I fully agree with
`
`Dr. Melendez’s opinion.
`
`UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`
`7.
`
`It is my understanding that the Petitioner bears the burden of proving
`
`unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, which I understand to be
`
`just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that Petitioner’s argument
`
`is correct. In evaluating the patentability of the claims of the patents-in-suit,
`
`each claim is to be evaluated independently.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 – Anticipation
`
`
`submitted by him in the other IPRs.
`
`
`Page 2 of 95
`
`
`
`
`
`8. For rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it is my understanding that
`
`each and every claim element must be found in a single reference. For example,
`
`for a patent to be anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by a printed publication, all
`
`the limitations of the claim must be present within the four corners of a single
`
`publication having a single publication date.
`
`9.
`
`It is also my understanding that for a reference to be used to render
`
`claims of a patent unpatentable under both 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103, it must be a prior art reference as defined by 35 U.S.C. § 102 as the statute
`
`was in effect at the time the invention was made, and as interpreted by
`
`controlling case law. For example, a document that was not a publication
`
`because it was suppressed or concealed (i.e., kept confidential and not made
`
`available to the public) would not qualify as a prior art reference under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 and thus would not be available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`or 35 U.S.C. § 103. Likewise, a foreign reference that was published after the
`
`filing date or the priority date of a U.S. Patent would not qualify as a prior art
`
`reference for that patent.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 – Obviousness
`
`10. I have also been informed that, where each and every element is not
`
`present in a single reference, a claim may still be invalid as “obvious” if the
`
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art
`
`are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time
`
`the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 95
`
`
`
`subject matter pertains. I understand that the following factors must be
`
`evaluated to determine whether the claimed subject matter is obvious: (1) the
`
`scope and content of the prior art; (2) the difference or differences, if any,
`
`between each claim of the patent and the prior art; and (3) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`11. I understand that obviousness may be shown by considering more
`
`than one item of prior art and by considering the knowledge of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, and that obviousness may be based on various
`
`rationales including: (i) combining prior art elements according to known
`
`methods to yield predictable results; (ii) simple substitution of one known
`
`element for another to obtain predictable results; (iii) use of known techniques
`
`to improve similar devices in the same way; (iv) applying a known technique to
`
`a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (v) “obvious
`
`to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with
`
`a reasonable expectation of success; (vi) known work in one field of endeavor
`
`may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one
`
`based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are
`
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and (vii) some teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation in the prior that would have led one of ordinary skill
`
`to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to
`
`arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 95
`
`
`
`12. It is my understanding that the notion that references might teach
`
`away from one another is an important component of any obviousness analysis.
`
`13. I have also been informed and I understand that so-called “objective
`
`indicia” of non-obviousness, also known as “secondary considerations,” like the
`
`following are also to be considered when assessing obviousness: (1) commercial
`
`success due to the merits of the claimed invention; (2) a long-felt need for the
`
`solution provided by the claimed invention; (3) copying of the claimed
`
`invention by others; (4) unexpected superior results from the claimed invention;
`
`(5) acceptance by others of the claimed invention as shown by the praise or
`
`licensing of the claimed invention; and (6) surprise, initial skepticism or
`
`disbelief may be used to show that the claims were not obvious. I understand
`
`that any of the factors (1) – (6) provide objective secondary evidence that the
`
`claimed invention was not obvious at the time of its invention.
`
`14. I also understand that there must be a nexus between the claimed
`
`subject matter and the evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness, and
`
`that the evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness must be
`
`commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter.
`
`15. I also understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary
`
`creativity, and is not an automaton. I understand that that in considering
`
`obviousness, hindsight analysis is inappropriate; obviousness must be measured
`
`at the time the invention was made. The Petitioner should not use the patent as
`
`a roadmap for selecting and combining items of prior art.
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 95
`
`
`
`16. An inference that a claimed combination would not have been
`
`obvious is especially strong where the prior art’s teachings undermine the very
`
`reason being proffered as to why a person having ordinary skill would have
`
`combined the know elements.
`
`17. In assessing obviousness, it is my understanding that one is to
`
`consider any distortion caused by hindsight bias, to guard against slipping into
`
`the use of hindsight, to be cautious of opinions that rely upon after-the-fact
`
`reasoning, and to avoid the temptation to read into the prior art the teachings of
`
`the invention at issue. The determination of obviousness is not whether a person
`
`could, with full knowledge of the patented device, reproduce it from prior art or
`
`known principles. The question is whether it would have been obvious, without
`
`knowledge of the patentee’s achievement, to produce the same thing that the
`
`patentee produced. This judgment must be made without the benefit of
`
`hindsight. It is improper to take concepts from other devices and change them in
`
`light of the now-known template of the patented device, without some direction
`
`in the prior art that would render it obvious to do so.
`
`18. It is my understanding that § 2142 of the Manual of Patent
`
`Examining Procedure (MPEP) states that “the legal concept of prima facie
`
`obviousness is a procedural tool which applies broadly to all arts. It allocates
`
`which party has the burden of proof going forward with production of evidence
`
`in each step of the examination process.”
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 95
`
`
`
`19. It is my understanding that the Petitioner bears the initial burden of
`
`factually supporting any prima facie conclusion of obviousness in an IPR. If
`
`the Petitioner does not present a prima facie case, the Patent Owner is under no
`
`obligation to submit evidence of non-obviousness. If, however, the Petitioner
`
`does present a prima facie case, the burden of coming forward with evidence or
`
`arguments shifts to the Patent Owner who may submit additional evidence of
`
`non-obviousness.
`
`20. Based on the above principles, it is my understanding that my task is
`
`to assess the technical merits of the arguments the Petitioner presented in its
`
`assertion of obviousness, based on the prior art and based on actual true and
`
`correct facts.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE PATENT
`
`State of the Art at the Time of Invention
`
`21. During the 2003-2004 time period, when the claimed inventions
`
`were conceived and developed, cellular phones were mobile voice
`
`communication devices in the market. Real-time multimedia content
`
`enjoyment was not feasible on cellular phones.
`
`22. HDMI, at the time of invention, was released for DVI audio signal.
`
`High definition multimedia signals were not transmitted over a conventional
`
`cellular network and a conventional cellular phone could not process high
`
`definition multimedia signals. HDMI 1.0 was released on December 9, 2002
`Page 7 of 95
`
`
`
`
`
`followed by HDMI 1.1 on May 20, 2004 supporting DVD-Audio. HDMI 1.2
`
`supporting PC devices was released on August 8, 2005 after the non-provisional
`
`application filing of the Patent. HDMI does not apply to a conventional cellular
`
`phone at the time of invention.
`
`23. At the time of invention, a conventional TV was not connected to a
`
`conventional cellular phone for receiving any high definition digital multimedia
`
`signal because the conventional cellular phone could not receive and process
`
`any high definition digital multimedia signals at indicated by Seaman. (Ex.
`
`1015, ¶ 0007, 0008,0009)
`
`24. At the time of the priority dates of the Subject Patent(s) the
`
`capabilities of mobile terminals (the Eastern District of Virginia has previously
`
`construed “mobile terminal” to exclude personal computers) and associated
`
`wireless systems were extremely limited when contrasted to what is known and
`
`available today. At that time, there was no blurring of lines in industry or
`
`otherwise between the robust capabilities of personal computers and their
`
`peripherals, with the primitive capabilities of even the most advanced mobile
`
`terminals and their displays. Indeed, memory on mobile terminals was so low,
`
`that the number of contacts a person could store (e.g. Names and phone
`
`numbers) remained limited.
`
`25. Indeed, our team developed a Multimedia Classroom System for an
`
`education corporation in 2004. A terminal (student side) was developed based
`
`on a thin client, which can download video courseware from the server (teacher
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 95
`
`
`
`side) through a wireless local area network (WLAN), and output the video
`
`signal to a display of the terminal. We did not develop the terminal based on a
`
`mobile phone, because the mobile phone of the student failed to meet
`
`requirements of the Multimedia Classroom System. At that time, the most
`
`high-end smartphone on the market was Nokia 7650 released 2002 for around
`
`RMB6000. The smartphone contained a 32-bit RISC CPU (ARM-9 series), a
`
`104 MHz CPU clock, 4 MB of non-expandable main memory (RAM) and 16
`
`MB ROM, which resulted it can only process/display 208 x 176 pixel video (in
`
`contrast, the high definition video signal requires at least 1280×720 pixel) on its
`
`TFT (Thin Film Transistor) internal display. Further, the smartphone only
`
`shared multimedia data with external device through IR, Bluetooth, MMS and
`
`e-mail, i.e. it cannot output video signal at all. More importantly, the
`
`smartphone only supported GSM/GPRS (downlink rate: up to 53.6 kbps)
`
`without Wi-Fi module. Therefore, the smartphone then was not suitable for
`
`downloading video from the server, let alone outputting the video signal to the
`
`external display.
`
`26. Petitioner also attempts to introduce Seaman in combination with
`
`Nam and Takeda (e.g. IPR2017-00872/00873), however the rational for this is
`
`not apparently sound. To explain this point, it is important to understand that
`
`just because a device has the ability to receive wireless signals, does not mean it
`
`has the capability to be a mobile terminal, or that it’s technologies are relevant.
`
`Take the above wireless thin client, for example, which received signals through
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 95
`
`
`
`the wireless local network (WLAN) and had an internal touchscreen display.
`
`More importantly, the thin client was fixed to the desk of the Multimedia
`
`Classroom and was not a mobile terminal, and adding a battery to it, would not
`
`have made it so. Such is the case with Seaman, except that Seaman does not
`
`even have a built-in display. A POSITA cannot simply look at technologies for
`
`wall powered systems, and make them smaller and battery operated. If this were
`
`possible, society would not have had to wait decades after the invention of
`
`personal computers in order to have smart phones.
`
`Technological Innovations of the Patent
`
`27. The Patent describes how multimedia signals can be received by,
`
`and processed through, a mobile terminal for display on an external device.
`
`(IPR2017-00875, Paper 13 at 4 (PTAB Sep. 13, 2017) (citing Ex. 1001, 1:34–
`
`36).) According to the Patent specification, high definition multimedia
`
`information, such as television, 3-D images, network games, and video phone
`
`calls are transmitted from various service providers and received for display on
`
`a screen of a mobile terminal. (Id. at 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:51–55).)
`
`Multimedia information may be transmitted wireless over cellular networks,
`
`like the 3G network. In general, multimedia communications including video
`
`are transmitted wirelessly over cellular networks as compressed signals. These
`
`signals may be decompressed by the wireless device for viewing, however, the
`
`limited size and capability of the mobile terminal screen may diminish user
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 95
`
`
`
`enjoyment of high rate data flow applications. (Id. at 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:62–
`
`65).)
`
`28. To address these issues, the patent discloses processing a high
`
`definition multimedia signal appropriate for the mobile terminal — generally by
`
`decompressing a compressed high definition digital video signal to a
`
`decompressed high definition digital video signal followed by encoding the
`
`decompressed high definition digital video signal for transmission through a
`
`high definition digital output interface of the mobile terminal—to accommodate
`
`production of a corresponding high definition multimedia content on a high
`
`definition digital television. (Id. at 6-7 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig 3).)
`
`29. The Patent also resolves the problem of insufficient power within a
`
`mobile device, to accomplish this processing of the high definition digital video
`
`signal. In particular, the Patent explains that external power can be received to
`
`support signal processing and transmission utilizing a same signal transmission
`
`interface to receive this external power. (Ex. 1001 at 7:49-56.)
`
`30. Given the overall failure of the cited prior art to teach the key claim
`
`elements of all the challenged claims in all ten Petitions, my declaration will
`
`focus on major flaws shared by all ten Petitions. The technical information and
`
`analysis including, distorted “disclosure” of allege prior arts and fragmented
`
`claim elements, are applicable to variations in claiming the inventions of the
`
`Patents in all ten Petitions and all Dr. Almeroth's declarations. In general, given
`
`the overall failure of the cited prior art to teach these elements as recited, my
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 95
`
`
`
`analysis is applicable to each of the challenged claims of the ten Petitions, these
`
`variations notwithstanding.
`
`REFERENCES RELIED UPON BY PETITIONER
`
`31. I reviewed the following are relied upon by Petition, including U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,480,484 to Nam (“Nam”). (Ex. 1005.), which Petitioner combines
`
`with a U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0223614 A1 to Seaman
`
`(“Seaman”) (Ex. 1015) and U.S. Patent No. 6,781,635 to Takeda (“Takeda”)
`
`(Ex. 1006), as well as European Patent Application No. EP 1 175 069 A1 to
`
`Matsubara et al. (“Matsubara”) (Ex. 1018).
`
`Nam
`
`32. Nam describes a system for transmitting images or video from a
`
`cellular phone to other devices, but lacks multiple features of the Patent claims.
`
`(Ex. 1005.) As described by Nam and shown in Figure 1, components of the
`
`phone 100 send and receive data from external monitors 120 and recording
`
`devices 122:
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 95
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 1.)
`
`33. Nam identifies only a single type of output port for communication
`
`with the external devices, Namely an S-video port. (Ex. 1005 at 3:66-4:1.)
`
`This is an analog, not a digital port; a fact that Petitioner’s expert Dr. Almeroth
`
`does not note in his Declaration, and confuses at his deposition. (Ex. 2008 at
`
`110:5-7, 258:11-259:13.)
`
`34. Likewise, when describing the formats for signals between the phone
`
`and the external devices, Nam describes only three types: NTSC, PAL, and
`
`“digital video.” (Ex. 1005 at 4:4-9; 4:28-32.)
`
`35. It is undisputed that known “digital video” formats at the time of the
`
`invention could be sent over analog connections, exactly as described by Nam.
`
`(Ex 2008 at 109:22-110-4.) Nam fails to teach not only processing of any
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 95
`
`
`
`digital signal, but also any high definition signals or interface. (Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶144.)
`
`36. Nam also teaches away from the concept of providing power through
`
`the same communication connection that is transmitting a signal. Specifically,
`
`the lone description within Nam of sending transmissions through “a single
`
`signal line” expressly notes that the line provides all electrical connectivity
`
`“except power and ground.”2 (Ex. 1005 at 2:24-26.)
`
`Seaman
`
`37. The Petition cites Seaman for the notion that “high definition”
`
`features could have been provided in the device of Nam, but the references
`
`themselves teach away from the combination.
`
`38. As the Board notes, Seaman is directed to providing
`
`video-on-demand solutions. (Paper 13 at p. 4 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 10).)
`
`Because “one needs a PC that is up to date as well as a high speed internet
`
`connection” and “a PC is an expensive requirement,” (Ex. 1015 at ¶¶ 8, 9),
`
`Seaman discloses a dedicated device, “with no powerful generic processor,”
`
`capable of delivering a video-on-demand to a TV. (Id. at ¶¶ 1-14.) Seaman
`
`teaches that the device is placed near a TV to feed to the input of the TV set.
`
`(Id. at ¶ 37.)
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise indicated, emphasis in this Response has been added.
`Page 14 of 95
`
`
`
`
`
`39. Seaman is particularly directed to security features for protected
`
`content. The dedicated device is further configured so that copyright
`
`protection is added to the signal by Mac De/Encryptor 140 and copyright
`
`protection circuit 160. (Id. at ¶ 23.) Thereafter, the copyright protected video
`
`is ready to be sent to a TV set. (Id. at ¶ 23.)
`
`40. Seaman expressly teaches away from utilizing a “cellular phone” for
`
`processing any video signals, much less a “high definition digital video signal”
`
`as recited in the claims of the Patent. Seaman describes: “currently wired or
`
`wireless telephone service is not capable of providing video on demand.
`
`Neither is telephone service capability available via video rental services.” (Id.
`
`at ¶ 07.)
`
`Takeda
`
`41. Petitioner relies on Takeda for the notion that power could be
`
`transmitted through the same “interface” as data signals.
`
`42. Takeda describes a separate device, and “conversion adaptor,” that
`
`operates with a cellphone to provide signals to an external display. (Ex. 1006
`
`at 2:19-23.) As conceded by Dr. Almeroth, the conversion adaptor is the
`
`device from which the processed signal for the external monitor emanates.
`
`(Ex. 2008 at 302:20-311:10.) Dr. Almeroth had no opinion, nor could he
`
`provide one at his deposition, regarding where the “encoded” signal was formed
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 95
`
`
`
`within the various devices described by Takeda. (Id. at 305:21-307:21,
`
`314:5-24.)
`
`Matsubara
`
`43. Matsubara discloses a system for a television to receive compressed
`
`analog signals from an Internet service provider. Internet Protocol data is
`
`transmitted through a wireless mobile communication services including a
`
`cellphone for the Internet content provider to transmit Internet content to the TV.
`
`(Ex. 1018 at Figs. 1, 3, 7, Abstract, ¶¶ 7, 9, 10, 16, 41, 42, claim 1.)
`
`Matsubara describes an embodiment useful in motor vehicles, and Petitioner
`
`and its expert rely on Matsubara merely for the teaching of this particular
`
`features. (See, e.g., Petition at pp. 62-63.)
`
`GROUND 1 – CLAIMS 1-3, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, AND 34
`
`The Combination of Nam, Seaman, and Takeda
`
`Nam Fails to Disclose Multiple Recited Features of Claim 1
`
`44. Nam lacks at least two recited features of the claim: Namely, (1) a
`
`“high definition digital output interface” and “encoding the decompressed
`
`digital signal” for transmission through the “high definition digital output
`
`interface” and (2) that the interface is configured not only to transmit the
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 95
`
`
`
`previously-recited “encoded digital signal,” but also configured to “receive
`
`power.”
`
`45. Nam does not teach all elements of the challenged claims. Dr.
`
`Almeroth asserts that the S-video connection itself between elements 102 and
`
`120 is the claimed “device interface module.” (Ex. 1003m pp. 89-90.)
`
`However, in the ‘492 Patent, the claimed interface (e.g., 306a/306b)
`
`communicates with the “signal conversion module” to “provide the converted
`
`video signals” to the S-video pathway. (Ex. 1001, at Figs. 2 and 3, 5:22-33,
`
`6:26-36, 10:6-29)
`
`46. Moreover, Nam and Takeda should not be combined as proposed by
`
`Petition and Dr. Almeroth because Nam does processing within the phone,
`
`while Takeda does processing outside the phone.
`
`47. An exemplary “high definition digital output interface,” illustrated in
`
`Figure 3, is as an HDMI (i.e., high definition multimedia interface) connection.
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 95
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Fig. 3.)
`
`48. Each example of the “HDMI, DVI-D, DVI, and IEEE 1394”
`
`interface shown in Figure 3 represents a different transmission standard, each of
`
`which physically and logically represents one example of a transmission
`
`“interface” connecting “interface 306b” to the “digital display terminal, 322.”
`
`These industry standards—each corresponding to a communication protocol
`
`across multiple transmission layers, synchronous scheme, clock signals, and pin
`
`functions—do not exist concurrently and function simultaneously in any single
`
`“interface” of a known mobile terminal, let alone inside an interface of a
`
`conventional cellular phone at the time of invention.
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 95
`
`
`
`49. Indeed, “HDMI” and “DVI” are acronyms. The “I” in each stands
`
`for the word “interface.” HDMI means “high-definition multimedia interface”;
`
`DVI means “digital visual interface.”
`
`50. Figure 5 of the Patent shows a single cable connected to the cellular
`
`phone, which itself connects to a single port, not multiple ports:
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Fig. 5.)
`
`
`
`51. In contrast to these recited features, Nam describes only a single type
`
`of output interface, an “S-video port.” (Ex. 1005 at 3:66-4:1.) As noted
`
`above, S-video ports are analog ports, not digital ports, a point eventually
`
`conceded by Petitioner’s expert. (Ex. 2008 at 110:5:7, 258:13-259:13.)
`Page 19 of 95
`
`
`
`
`
`52. The S-video ports of Nam thus cannot transmit an encoded digital
`
`signal, much less the high definition encoded digital signal recited in claim 1.
`
`While Nam mentions support for “digital video” formats, there is also no
`
`dispute that at the time of the invention S-video analog ports could transmit a
`
`“digital video” format that had been converted to analog. (Ex. 2008 at
`
`109:22-110:4.) Indeed, at the time of invention, analog signal output was
`
`commonly used to transmit “digital video” signals to a display.
`
`Nam and Seaman Both Teach Away from the
`
`Combination Asserted by Petition and its Expert
`
`53. Petitioner seeks to combine the system of Nam with the disclosure of
`
`“high definition” formats of Seaman.
`
`54. The dedicated device and features of Seaman, if incorporated into
`
`the device taught by Nam and Takeda, would necessarily take up limited space,
`
`consume additional power, and reduce the amount of time the device can last on
`
`a single set of power cells. That is, each of these components included in the
`
`Seaman device would undermine the operation of the cellular phone of Nam
`
`(and Takeda) in the 2004 time frame when the invention was conceived and
`
`developed.
`
`Takeda Teaches Away from the Combination
`
`55. Seaman’s dedicated TV-device does not have a “rechargeable
`
`battery” to benefit Takeda’s “supply circuit” for power. As a result, Seaman’s
`
`“HDMI” inside a dedicated TV-device and Takeda’s “supply circuit” for
`Page 20 of 95
`
`
`
`
`
`charging a “rechargeable battery” of a cellular phone are not compatible, and
`
`could not be combined to achieve the recited “high definition digital output
`
`interface configured to transmit the encoded digital signal and to receive
`
`power.”
`
`56. NTSC and PAL refer to analog systems for standard television. Thus,
`
`as with the aforementioned analog S-Video port of Nam, Takeda’s disclosure is
`
`direct to outputting analog, not digital signals. The only reference to “digital”
`
`signals in Takeda relates to conversion of audio signals. (Ex. 1006, 7:65-8:2)
`
`(“The DAC 48 converts the audio data (digital data) supplied from the audio
`
`buffer 46 to an analog audio signal. The converted analog signal is amplified by
`
`the amplifier 47, and then outputted from a speaker (not shown) of the
`
`television monitor 60 as audio.”)
`
`The Additional References Cited by Petitioner and
`
`Its Expert
`
`57. Petitioner and Dr. Almeroth cite further references. For example,
`
`Petitioner and its expert cite to the IEEE 1392 technical standard, the Universal
`
`Serial Bus or “USB” standard, and the Yoo reference.
`
`58. Neither IEEE 1392, USB nor Yoo taught the provision of power
`
`through a high definition digital output interface at the time of the invention.
`
`In fact, it was not until several years after the invention that a newer version of
`
`the HDMI standard was modified to include the provision of power. Likewise,
`
`neither USB nor IEEE 1394 could transmit high definition video signals and
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 95
`
`
`
`receive power prior to 2004. USB was first used for power charging in 2007,
`
`also years after the invention of the Patent.
`
`59. HDMI 1.0 was released on December 9, 2002 followed by HDMI
`
`1.1 on May 20, 2004 supporting DVD-Audio. HDMI 1.2 supporting PC devices
`
`was released on August 8, 2005 after the non-provisional application filing of
`
`the Patent. Therefore, HDMI as applied to the claims could not apply to a
`
`conventional cellular phone at the time of invention.
`
`OBJECTIVE INDICIA CONSIDERED
`
`60. I further considered the following objective indicia with respect to
`
`the Challenged Claims.
`
`61. MHL-enabled cellular phones practice the claimed invention.
`
`MHL is a technology standard for a mobile audio/video interface developed
`
`starting in 2009, years after the invention of the patents in suit. (See, e.g., Exs.
`
`2009, 2010 at 1.) A consortium of five companies in the consumer electronic
`
`and mobile device market started working on this new standard, and the MHL
`
`specification version 1.0 was released in June 2010. (See Ex. 2010 at 1.)
`
`62. An April 17, 2012 PCWorld article evidences a clear nexus between
`
`the key features of MHL and the features of the patent claims. The article
`
`describes MHL as follows:
`
`Back in 2009, Silicon Image developed a prototype mobile
`
`audiovisual interface called Mobile High-Definition Link to
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 95
`
`
`
`output high-definition content from a smartphone to a HDTV. A
`
`year later, Nokia, Samsung, Silicon Image, Sony, and Toshiba
`
`announced the MHL Consortium, a group developed to oversee the
`
`licensing and promotion of the specification.
`
`MHL is an audiovisual interface standard for connecting a mobile
`
`device to HDTVs and other displays using a single cable that
`
`charges the device while providing up to 1080p video and digital
`
`audio, all at once.
`
`. . . Displaying HD audio and video through MHL doesn't even use
`
`all of the available pins on the cable, so the cable has room to
`
`transmit power as well.
`
`That feature is important, because if you're going to use your phone
`
`to play high-definition video on your big screen, you're going to
`
`need a lot of power . . . .
`
`More and more MHL-compatible devices are coming out every
`
`year, and chances are good that you already own an
`
`MHL-compatible smartphone or HDTV.
`
`The best thing about MHL technology is that it’s coming to many
`
`more things than just televisions. Companies such as Pioneer have
`
`developed in-dash receivers that work with Android devices via
`
`MHL (the product also works with iPhones via a different adapter)
`
`
`
`Page 23 of 95
`
`
`
`to allow hands-free calls and access to compatible apps via a large
`
`multitouch screen built into your vehicle’s dash. …
`
`Even though it's still nascent technology, the future of MHL seems
`
`exciting . . . .
`
`(Ex. 2020 at 1-3, 5.)
`
`63. Following the development of this standard, cellphone manufactures
`
`began incorporating MHL capabilities. For instance, Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd (“Samsung”) produced multiple smartphones that support video output
`
`using MHL. Such devices include, but are not limited to various Samsung
`
`devices, including Galaxy S II; Galaxy Nexus i515; Galaxy Note N7000; and
`
`Galaxy S III. (See Ex. 2012 at 1,4,7,9.) (listing “MHL TV-out” under USB
`
`specification) In fact, the first mobile device to feature the MHL standard was
`
`the Samsung Galaxy S II. (See Ex. 2013 at 5.) As shown in the chart below,
`
`smartphones or portable devices employing the MHL standard – including, for
`
`example, the Samsung Galaxy S2 – are covered by the Patent.
`
`Exemplary Independent
`
`Public Disclosures About MHL Standard
`
`Claim of Patent
`
`1. A cellular phone
`
`“MHL is an innovative technology that fundamentally
`
`comprising:
`
`changes the way we work and play. Transform your
`
`smartphone into a home theater system and stream your
`
`favorite TV channels, movies, and home videos in
`
`
`
`Page 24 of 95
`
`
`
`high-definition. Experience the music you love with
`
`immersive surround sound. Play mobile games on the
`
`big screen, while charging your phone or even using it
`
`as a controller. MHL shares your inspiration with the
`
`world around you. More than 900 million MHL devices
`
`are waiting for you!” (Ex. 2009 at 1.)
`
`an input interface
`
`An MHL-enabled smartphone is configured to receive a
`
`configured to receive a
`
`multimedia signal appropriate for displaying a
`
`multimedia signal
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
