`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`TWITTER, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YOUTOO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`Issued: June 11, 2013
`Application No.: 13/185,471
`Filed: July 18, 2011
`Title: Content Creation and Distribution System
`_________________
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND ENGAGEMENT .................................................... 5
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 5
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED AND
`INFORMATION RELIED UPON REGARDING ’304 PATENT ...............11
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW ....................................................13
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’304 PATENT ..........................................................16
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN
`THE PERTINENT ART FOR THE ’304 PATENT .....................................17
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION: BROADEST REASONABLE
`INTERPRETATION OF TERMS IN THE ’304 PATENT ..........................19
`
`A.
`
`“Predetermined constraints” ................................................................20
`
`B.
`
`“Transcoding” .....................................................................................22
`
`C.
`
`“Buffered on the client computing device using scripts” (cl. 5) ........23
`
`VIII. DETAILED ANALYSIS AND OPINION ...................................................24
`
`A. Ground 1: Lahti Combined with the Current TV References .............25
`
`1.
`
`The Prior Art References ..........................................................25
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Background on Lahti ......................................................25
`
`The Current TV References ............................................27
`
`2.
`
`Rationale and Motivation to
`Combine Lahti and Current TV ................................................28
`
`3.
`
`Analysis .....................................................................................34
`
`B. Ground 2: Lahti Combined with Current TV and Washington ..........83
`
`1.
`
`Overview of the Prior Art .........................................................83
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Lahti ................................................................................83
`
`Current TV ......................................................................83
`
`c) Washington .....................................................................83
`
`2.
`
`Rationale and Motivation to
`Combine Lahti, Current TV, and Washington ..........................86
`
`3.
`
`Analysis .....................................................................................91
`
`C. Ground 3: Lahti Combined with
`Current TV, Washington, and Franken ...............................................93
`
`1.
`
`Overview of the Prior Art .........................................................93
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Lahti ................................................................................93
`
`Current TV ......................................................................93
`
`c) Washington .....................................................................93
`
`d)
`
`Franken ...........................................................................93
`
`2.
`
`Rationale and Motivation to Combine
`Lahti with Current TV, Washington, and Franken ...................97
`
`3.
`
`Analysis ...................................................................................109
`
`D. Ground 4: Lahti Combined with Chen and the Admitted Art ..........154
`
`1.
`
`Overview of the Prior Art .......................................................154
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Lahti ..............................................................................154
`
`Chen ..............................................................................154
`
`Admitted Prior Art ........................................................157
`
`2.
`
`Rationale and Motivation to Combine
`Lahti with Chen and the Admitted Art ...................................157
`
`3.
`
`Analysis ...................................................................................162
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Lahti Combined with the
`Current TV References and the Admitted Art ..................................186
`
`1.
`
`Overview of the Prior Art .......................................................186
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Lahti ..............................................................................186
`
`Current TV ....................................................................186
`
`Admitted Prior Art ........................................................186
`
`2.
`
`Rationale and Motivation to Combine Lahti
`with the Current TV References and the Admitted Art ..........186
`
`3.
`
`Analysis ...................................................................................188
`
`F.
`
`Ground 6: Claims 1, 4, and 9 are
`Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Over Lahti. .......................223
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of the Prior Art .......................................................223
`
`Analysis ...................................................................................223
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Henry Houh, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND ENGAGEMENT
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert on behalf of Twitter,
`
`Inc. in connection with the above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) to provide my analyses and opinions on certain technical issues related to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304 (hereinafter “the ’304 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual and customary rate for the time I
`
`spent in connection with this IPR. My compensation is not affected by the
`
`outcome of this IPR.
`
`3.
`
`Specifically, I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding
`
`whether claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11-17, 19-26, 28, 29 and 30 (each a “Challenged
`
`Claim” and collectively the “Challenged Claims”) of the ‘304 Patent would have
`
`been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of January
`
`25, 2011. It is my opinion that each Challenged Claim would have been obvious to
`
`a POSITA after reviewing the prior art discussed herein.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`I am an expert in the fields of distributed multimedia systems,
`
`network architecture, networking, web site architecture, and Internet applications.
`
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my training, knowledge, and
`
`experience in the relevant art. A copy of my curriculum vitae is appended to this
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`declaration as Appendix A and provides a description of my professional
`
`experience, including my academic and employment history, publications,
`
`conference participation, awards and honors, and more. The following is a brief
`
`summary of my relevant qualifications and professional experience.
`
`5.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
`
`from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1998. I also received a Master
`
`of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1991, a
`
`Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in
`
`1989, and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Physics in 1990.
`
`6.
`
`I am currently self-employed as an independent technical consultant. I
`
`am also president of a company that provides supplemental science, technology,
`
`engineering, and science education to children of all ages.
`
`7.
`
`I first worked in the area of digital and streaming media, including
`
`real-time streamed audio and video, as part of my doctoral research at MIT from
`
`1991-1998. During that time, I was a research assistant in the Telemedia Network
`
`Systems (TNS) group at the Laboratory for Computer Science. The TNS group
`
`built a high-speed gigabit network and created applications that ran over the
`
`network. Example applications included ones for remote video capture,
`
`processing, and display of video on computer terminals. In addition to working on
`
`the design of core network components, designing and building the high speed
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`links, and designing and writing the device drivers for the interface cards, I also set
`
`up the group’s web server.
`
`8.
`
`The TNS group was the first group to initiate a remote video display
`
`over the web. Vice-President Al Gore visited our group in 1996 and received a
`
`demonstration of – and remotely drove – a radio controlled toy car with a wireless
`
`video camera mounted on it; the video was encoded by TNS-designed hardware,
`
`streamed over the TNS-designed network and displayed using TNS-designed
`
`software.
`
`9.
`
`I submitted and defended my Ph.D. thesis titled, “Designing Networks
`
`for Tomorrow’s Traffic,” in January 1998. As part of my thesis research, I
`
`analyzed local-area and wide-area flows to show a more efficient method for
`
`routing packets in a network, based on traffic patterns at the time. My thesis also
`
`addressed real-time streamed audio and video.
`
`10.
`
`I authored or co-authored twelve papers and conference presentations
`
`on our group’s research. I also co-edited the final report of the gigabit networking
`
`research effort with the Professor (David Tennenhouse) and Senior Research
`
`Scientist of the group (David Clark), who is generally considered to be one of the
`
`fathers of the Internet Protocol.
`
`11.
`
`I started building web servers in 1993, having set up the web server
`
`for the MIT Telemedia, Networks, and Systems Group, to which I belonged. It
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`was one of the first several hundred web servers in existence, and went on to
`
`provide what was likely one of the first live Internet video sessions initiated from a
`
`web site. I co-authored papers on our web server video system and on database-
`
`backed web sites for which I attended the first World Wide Web conference to
`
`present.
`
`12. From 1997 to 1999, I was a Senior Scientist and Engineer at NBX
`
`Corporation, a start-up that made business telephone systems that streamed
`
`packetized audio over data networks instead of using traditional phone lines. NBX
`
`was later acquired by 3Com Corporation, and the phone system is still available
`
`and being used at tens of thousands of businesses or more. As part of my work at
`
`NBX, I designed the core audio reconstruction algorithms for the telephones, as
`
`well as the packet transmission algorithms. I also designed and validated the core
`
`packet transport protocol used by the phone system. The protocol is used millions
`
`of times daily currently. Two of the company founders and I received US Patent
`
`No. 6,967,963 titled “Telecommunication method for ensuring on-time delivery of
`
`packets containing time sensitive data,” as a result of part of this work.
`
`13. Starting in 2001, I was the architect for the next generation of web
`
`testing product by Empirix known as e-Test Suite. e-Test Suite is now owned by
`
`Oracle Corporation. e-Test provided functional and load testing for web sites. e-
`
`Test emulated a user’s interaction with a web site and provided web developers
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`with a method of creating various scripts and providing both functional testing
`
`(e.g., did the web site provide the correct response) and load testing (e.g., could the
`
`web site handle 5000 users on its web site simultaneously). Among Empirix’s
`
`customers was H&R Block, who used e-Test Suite to test the tax filing
`
`functionality of their web site as whether the web site could handle a large
`
`expected load prior to the filing deadline.
`
`14. At Empirix, I also conceived, secured internal funding for, and
`
`managed the engineering for a new data platform test product known as the
`
`PacketSphere. The first capability the PacketSphere provided was to emulate a
`
`network so that lab testing could be done under conditions that mimicked the
`
`Internet, including configurable latency and packet loss. Later, PacketSphere
`
`provided the capability to generate large numbers of Voice-over-IP streams as well
`
`as measure the quality of the connection of VoIP streams. As part of my work, I
`
`continued to study the development of the Voice-over-IP market and worked with
`
`a number of Empirix customers to understand their market and product testing
`
`needs. Sonus Networks, a leading manufacturer of Voice-over-IP equipment, was
`
`a long-time customer of Empirix and one of the first customers of the
`
`PacketSphere product.
`
`15. Around 2006, at BBN, I helped create a search engine for audio and
`
`video which could be searched based on spoken word content. Our system used
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`speech recognition and natural language processing to create a search index of
`
`audio and video files posted publicly on the Internet. During the search process,
`
`audio and video with matching spoken words could be streamed to users through
`
`our web site. As the Vice President of Operations and Technology, I architected
`
`and helped build-out the back end of the system, which supported speech
`
`recognition, search indexing, and providing the capability for hosted audio and
`
`video streaming in search results. Today, at RAMP Inc., the project has grown to a
`
`product that is used by media outlets such as ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and Reuters.
`
`In addition, during this time at BBN, I continued to be engaged with Voice-over-IP
`
`related projects through the time I left BBN.
`
`16. Around 2008-2009, I was Chief Technology Officer at Eons, a
`
`venture backed company founded by Jeff Taylor, who also founded the hiring web
`
`site Monster.com. Eons built a social networking site.
`
`17.
`
`I have also continued to develop web sites for various business
`
`projects, as well as setting up web sites on a volunteer basis for various groups that
`
`I am associated with.
`
`18.
`
`I am the author of several publications devoted to a wide variety of
`
`technologies in the fields of electrical engineering and computer science. These
`
`publications are listed on my CV.
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`19.
`
`In summary, I have extensive familiarity with systems, networks,
`
`architectures, and methods related to traditional circuit-switched
`
`telecommunications, packet-based telecommunications, and systems that merged
`
`the two technologies, and I am familiar with what the states of these technologies
`
`were at the relevant time of the ‘304 Patent invention and before.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED AND
`INFORMATION RELIED UPON REGARDING ’304 PATENT
`
`20.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed the following materials
`
`bearing Exhibit Nos. that I understand are being referenced in the IPR to which my
`
`declaration accompanies:
`
`No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1004
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304 (“the ’304 Patent”)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`C.V. of Henry Houh
`
`“A Mobile Phone-based Context-aware Video Management
`Application,” Janne Lahti, et al., MULTIMEDIA ON MOBILE
`DEVICES II, PROC. OF SPIE-IS&T ELECTRONIC IMAGING, SPIE
`VOL. 6074, 60740O, 2006 (“Lahti”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0235200 to
`Washington (“Washington”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0012965 to Franken
`(“Franken”)
`
`Current TV “create & upload: mobile” webpage
`
`Current TV “Submission Guidelines” webpage
`
`Current TV “FAQ” webpage
`
`Excerpts of Dictionary of Computing and Digital Media
`
`Excerpts from Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`1017
`
`
`21.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,819,719 to Chen et al. (“Chen”)
`
`
`I understand that the ’304 Patent issued on June 11, 2013 from U.S.
`
`Patent Appl. No. 13/185,471, filed on July 18, 2011, which is a continuation-in-
`
`part of Appl. No. 13/013,775, filed on January 25, 2011.
`
`22.
`
` In forming the opinions expressed herein, I relied upon my education
`
`and experience in the relevant field of art, and have considered the viewpoint of a
`
`POSITA, as of January 25, 2011. I have also considered:
`
`a)
`
`the documents listed above,
`
`b)
`
`any additional documents and references cited in the
`
`analysis below,
`
`c)
`
`the relevant legal standards, including the standard for
`
`obviousness, and
`
`d) my knowledge and experience based upon my work in
`
`this area as described below.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that patent claims in an IPR are given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in view of the patent specification and the understandings
`
`of a POSITA. I further understand that this is not the same claim construction
`
`standard as one would use in a District Court proceeding.
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`
`24.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law was provided to me by Petitioner’s attorneys.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ‘304 Patent includes patents and
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the ‘304
`
`Patent. For purposes of this Declaration, I have applied the date of January 25,
`
`2011, the filing date of a parent application of which the application leading to the
`
`‘304 Patent was a continuation-in-part, as the priority date.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it would have been obvious.
`
`Obviousness of a claim requires that the claim would have been obvious from the
`
`perspective of a POSITA at the time the alleged invention was made. I understand
`
`that a claim could have been obvious from a single prior art reference or from a
`
`combination of two or more prior art references.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the alleged
`
`invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating the
`
`pertinent art.
`
`28.
`
`I further understand that a claim would have been obvious if it unites
`
`old elements with no change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`mere substitution of one element for another known in the field and that
`
`combination yields predictable results. While it may be helpful to identify a reason
`
`for this combination, I understand that there is no rigid requirement of finding an
`
`express teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine within the references.
`
`When a product is available, design incentives and other market forces can prompt
`
`variations of it, either in the same field or different one. If a POSITA can
`
`implement a predictable variation, obviousness likely bars its patentability. For the
`
`same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device and a POSITA
`
`would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
`
`technique would have been obvious. I understand that a claim would have been
`
`obvious if common sense directs one to combine multiple prior art references or
`
`add missing features to reproduce the alleged invention recited in the claims.
`
`29.
`
`I further understand that certain factors may support or rebut the
`
`obviousness of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include,
`
`among other things, commercial success of the patented invention, skepticism of
`
`those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, unexpected results of
`
`the invention, any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by the
`
`alleged invention, the failure of others to make the alleged invention, praise of the
`
`alleged invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the
`
`alleged invention by others in the field. I understand that there must be a nexus—a
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`connection—between any such secondary considerations and the alleged invention.
`
`I also understand that contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a
`
`secondary consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`30.
`
`I am not aware of any allegations by the named inventors of the ‘304
`
`Patent or any assignee of the ‘304 Patent that any secondary considerations tend to
`
`rebut the obviousness of any Challenged Claim of the ‘304 Patent.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that other challenges to the validity of a patent, including
`
`patent ineligibility, enablement, written description, and definiteness, cannot be
`
`raised in inter partes review proceedings before the Board to challenge the validity
`
`of the ‘304 Patent. Accordingly, I did not consider those other challenges.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability
`
`by a preponderance of evidence, which means that the claims are more likely than
`
`not invalid.
`
`34. The analysis in this declaration is in accordance with the above-stated
`
`legal principles.
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’304 PATENT
`
`35. The ’304 Patent, titled “Content Creation And Distribution System,”
`
`issued on June 11, 2013. The ’304 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`13/185,471 (the “’471 Application”), filed on July 18, 2011, which is a
`
`continuation-in-part of Application No. 13/013,775, filed on January 25, 2011.
`
`36.
`
` The ’304 Patent is directed at creating and sharing web content. For
`
`example, the patent admits that by the time the application was filed, it had
`
`“become relatively easy for individuals and groups of individuals to take digital
`
`photographs and to record video, and to distribute this content to others over the
`
`Internet or other data networks.” (Ex. 1001, 1:17-201.) “Still and video cameras,
`
`which are now common features on mobile phones, can be used to take
`
`photographs and to record videos that are immediately available for sharing with
`
`others through a multi-media messaging service or email, video file sharing sites,
`
`social network and similar services on the Internet that publish (to selected
`
`individuals or groups, or to everyone) or otherwise make available the photographs
`
`and video over the Internet.” (Id., 1:21-28.)
`
`37.
`
`Individuals “distribute their photos and videos by uploading them to
`
`web-based services that publish them for friends, family, social or business
`
`contacts or anyone with access to the Internet to view. When user-generated
`
`
`1 Citations herein to X:Y are to column:line number(s).
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`content is uploaded or shared for a specific purpose, such as for example, in
`
`response to a widely disseminated request for a certain type of content, it may be
`
`referred to as crowd-sourced content.” (Id., 1:31-38.)
`
`38. The patent goes on to explain that “[i]nexpensive computer
`
`application programs allow individuals to edit photographs, videos and other
`
`graphics into a single work with nearly professional results, and to render the
`
`resulting work or ‘content’ in standard formats for playback on a wide range of
`
`devices. Services for sharing user-generated video, photographs, and music abound
`
`on the Internet. For example, a number of video sharing sites allow people to
`
`upload, encode and share videos on the web.” (Id., 1:40-48.)
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN
`THE PERTINENT ART FOR THE ’304 PATENT
`
`39.
`
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill may be reflected by the
`
`prior art of record, and that a POSITA to which the claimed subject matter
`
`pertains would have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering
`
`principles applicable to the pertinent art.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary
`
`creativity, and is not a robot.
`
`41.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the
`
`field; and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems. There are likely a wide
`
`range of educational backgrounds in the technology fields pertinent to the ’304
`
`Patent. The concepts disclosed in the ’304 Patent are relatively simple and would
`
`have been covered by an undergraduate-level course on network architecture,
`
`website design, and/or Internet application design.
`
`42.
`
`I am very familiar with the knowledge and capabilities that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art of content creation and distribution, such as capturing
`
`and transcoding video data, and distributing the content to others via the Internet.
`
`43. Specifically, my experience prior to the relevant timeframe allowed
`
`me to become personally familiar with the knowledge and capabilities of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the area of Internet applications involving various aspects of
`
`creating and sharing multimedia, such as video data. Unless otherwise stated, my
`
`testimony below refers to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in this art as of
`
`January 2011.
`
`44.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art needed to have the
`
`capability of understanding the creation of various types of multimedia
`
`applications, network architecture, and associated distribution methods disclosed
`
`in the ’304 Patent, and would possess (i) a Bachelor’s degree in Computer
`
`Science, Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, or equivalent training, and (ii)
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`approximately two years of experience in network architecture and multimedia
`
`systems, including creating and distributing multimedia. Lack of work experience
`
`can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Such academic and
`
`industry experience would be necessary to appreciate what was obvious and/or
`
`anticipated in the industry and what a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have thought and understood at the time.
`
`45. For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`noted, my testimony below refers to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art during the time period around the earliest claimed priority date of the ’304
`
`Patent. I would have been a person with at least ordinary skill in the art at that
`
`time.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION:
`BROADEST REASONABLE
`INTERPRETATION OF TERMS IN THE ’304 PATENT
`
`46. For purposes of this review, the claim language is “given its broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, 579 U.S. (Jun 20,
`
`2017) (slip. op., at 16-17). Terms not specifically construed below are given their
`
`plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest reasonable interpretation. See id.
`
`47. Because the standard for claim construction at the USPTO is different
`
`than that used in other forums, Petitioner reserves the right to argue in other
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`forums, a different construction for any term, as appropriate to that proceeding. See
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`48. Petitioner proposes the following broadest reasonable interpretations:
`
`A.
`
`“Predetermined constraints”
`
`49. The ’304 Patent specification does not provide an explicit definition
`
`for “predetermined constraints.” However, the specification does provide several
`
`examples of “predetermined constraints,” as well as discussing their purpose. For
`
`example, the specification provides:
`
`“Video content is captured on a user device and formatted according to
`
`predetermined constraints using a web application or an installed
`
`application. The video content, for example, can be requested for
`
`inclusion in a television program. By formatting the video content
`
`according to predetermined constraints, the video content can be
`
`transcoded into a format appropriate for inclusion in a linear television
`
`programming schedule using an automated transcoding workflow
`
`corresponding to the predetermined format to ensure that the
`
`transcoded video file complies with requirements of a particular
`
`television broadcaster or television uplink facility. (Ex. 1001, 9:12-23.)
`
`“When the content creation sub-system is implemented as a thin client
`
`application or a specialized application installed on a user device, the
`
`application can enforce predetermined constraints on the captured
`
`video. Such constraints can help ensure that the video is in condition to
`
`be rapidly transcoded for insertion into a linear programming time slot.
`
`…
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`The client application (i.e., either thin client application or
`
`installed application) can also enforce restrictions on the length
`
`of a video that is captured for submission. For example, if a video
`
`is generated in response to a specific request for video or other
`
`content submissions, users may be directed to a particular web
`
`page associated with the request. By accessing the thin client
`
`through that web page and/or by delivering parameters to a
`
`locally installed application on the user device, a video length
`
`restriction can be enforced (i.e., the user can be prevented from
`
`capturing or submitting videos that do not comply with the length
`
`restrictions). In some implementations, the content creation sub-
`
`system can allow recordings of various durations suitable for
`
`including in time slots of linear programming (e.g., 15 seconds,
`
`30 seconds, etc.). For example, an affinity group may not have
`
`its own television program affiliated with its own private-label
`
`social media website. In such an instance, members of the
`
`affinity group may not have the option to record a 15-second
`
`“famespot” for inclusion in that affinity group’s television
`
`program. They may, however, be given rights to record and
`
`submit a 30-second “peoplemercial” that may be viewed on
`
`various programs within a television programming lineup. Other
`
`predetermined lengths may also be used. By enforcing length
`
`restrictions, the need to edit the video can be avoided, which can
`
`also expedite the process of inserting video into a linear
`
`programming sequence. Users may also be allowed to submit a
`
`video file of unspecified length for inclusion on an Internet video
`
`blog or as part of a linear program, otherwise known as a “social
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`clip.”
`
`(Id., 10:56-11:48.)
`
`50. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the
`
`specification of “predetermined constraints” is “parameters, rules, or restrictions
`
`provided to ensure compliance and compatibility with system requirements or
`
`goals, including but not limited to video length, video format type, video image
`
`resolution, video transmission bit rate, etc.”
`
`B.
`
`“Transcoding”
`
`51. The ’304 Patent uses “transcoding” in its ordinarily understood sense.
`
`For example, THE DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING & DIGITAL MEDIA defines
`
`“transcoding” as “[t]o convert from one video format to another, as opposed to
`
`encoding, which refers to the original capture or digitization of images.” (Ex. 1014,
`
`p. 4.) This definition is consistent with how the ’304 Patent uses the term. For
`
`example, the ’304 Patent provides:
`
`The content distribution sub-system 116 can include encoders
`
`(e.g., for encoding raw data or other uncompressed video format
`
`data into a compressed video format) and/or transcoders (e.g., for
`
`transcoding one compressed video format
`
`into another
`
`compressed video format) 118, storage servers 114 (e.g.,
`
`computer-readable memory) and a review and authorization
`
`interface 134. (Ex. 1001, 10:14-20.)
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`
`
`52. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “transcoding” is
`
`
`
`“converting from one video format to another.”
`
`C.
`
`“Buffered on the client
`computing device using scripts” (cl. 5)
`
`53.