UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`TWITTER, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YOUTOO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`IPR2017-01131
`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
`_________________
`
`PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,464,304
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 1
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1
`
`Lead Counsel, Back-Up Counsel, And Service Information ................ 1
`
`D.
`
`Payment of Fees .................................................................................... 2
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PER SECTION 42.104(a) ............................. 2
`
`IV. REQUESTED RELIEF ................................................................................... 2
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE .......................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`Challenged Claims ................................................................................ 3
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds For Challenges ........................................................ 3
`
`VI. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`The Prosecution History ........................................................................ 5
`
`B.
`
`Level Of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................... 6
`
`VII. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`Claims For Which Review Is Requested .............................................. 7
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds For Challenge .......................................................... 7
`
`VIII. CLAIM INTERPRETATION ......................................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“Predetermined constraints” (all claims) .................................... 8
`
`“Transcoding” ............................................................................. 8
`
`Page i
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`3.
`
`“Buffered on the client
`computing device using scripts” (claim 5) ................................. 9
`
`IX. GROUND #1: LAHTI IN VIEW OF
`“CURRENT TV MOBILE” AND “CURRENT TV FAQ” ..........................10
`
`A. Overview Of The Prior Art .................................................................10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Lahti ..........................................................................................10
`
`The Current TV References ......................................................12
`
`B. Motivation To Combine Lahti And Current TV .................................13
`
`C.
`
`Independent Claims 1 And 26 Are Unpatentable ...............................14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................15
`
`Claim 26 ....................................................................................29
`
`D. Dependent Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 14-16, and 28 Are Unpatentable ..........30
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................30
`
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................31
`
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................33
`
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................35
`
`Claim 14 ....................................................................................37
`
`Claim 15 ....................................................................................38
`
`Claim 16 ....................................................................................39
`
`Claim 28 ....................................................................................40
`
`X. GROUND #2: LAHTI IN VIEW OF THE
`CURRENT TV REFERENCES AND WASHINGTON ..............................41
`
`A. Overview Of The Prior Art And Motivation To Combine .................41
`
`B.
`
`Claim 11 Is Unpatentable ....................................................................43
`
`Page ii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`XI. GROUND #3: LAHTI IN VIEW OF THE
`CURRENT TV REFERENCES, WASHINGTON, AND FRANKEN ........44
`
`A. Overview Of The Prior Art And Motivation To Combine .................44
`
`B. Dependent Claims 12, 13, 29, and 30 Are Unpatentable ....................48
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 12 ....................................................................................48
`
`Claim 13 ....................................................................................52
`
`Claim 29 ....................................................................................55
`
`Claim 30 ....................................................................................57
`
`XII. GROUND #4: LAHTI IN VIEW
`OF CHEN AND THE ADMITTED ART .....................................................59
`
`A. Overview Of The Prior Art And Motivation To Combine .................59
`
`B.
`
`Independent Claim 17 Is Unpatentable ...............................................62
`
`C. Dependent Claims 19-21 Are Unpatentable .......................................65
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 19 ....................................................................................65
`
`Claim 20 ....................................................................................66
`
`Claim 21 ....................................................................................66
`
`XIII. GROUND #5: LAHTI IN VIEW OF THE
`CURRENT TV REFERENCES AND THE ADMITTED ART ..................68
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 22 Is Unpatentable ...............................................68
`
`B. Dependent Claims 23-25 Are Unpatentable .......................................71
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 23 ....................................................................................71
`
`Claim 24 ....................................................................................72
`
`Claim 25 ....................................................................................73
`
`XIV. GROUND #6: LAHTI ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 1, 4, AND 9 ...................74
`
`Page iii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`XV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................75
`
`
`
`
`
`Page iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee,
`579 U.S. (Jun 20, 2017) .......................................................................................... 7
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ......................................................................................................1, 7
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 .................................................................................................1, 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Page v
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304 (“the ’304 Patent”)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh (“Houh Decl.”)
`
`C.V. of Henry Houh
`
`Declaration of Eric Pepper (“Pepper Decl.”)
`
`“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
`
`Declaration of Scott Bennett
`
`Declaration of Arie Pellikaan
`
`Excerpts of Dictionary of Computing and Digital Media
`
`Excerpts from Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions
`
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler with Exhibit A
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,819,719 to Chen et al. (“Chen”)
`
`“Online Video Gets Real,” John R. Quain, PC Magazine (Feb. 7,
`2007)
`
`Chen Prosecution History, U.S. Patent Application No.
`11/952,125
`
`Page vi
`
`No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Twitter, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) respectfully submits that the present Petition presents a reasonable
`
`likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable in view of the prior art and requests
`
`inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11-17, 19-26, 28, 29 and 30 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,792,304 (Ex. 1001, the “’304 Patent”).
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Petitioner Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) is the sole real-party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Youtoo Technologies, LLC (“Youtoo”) asserted the ’304 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`against Twitter in a suit filed March 18, 2016, now styled, Youtoo Technologies,
`
`LLC v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00764-N, pending in the U.S. District Court
`
`for the Northern District of Texas.1
`
`C. Lead Counsel, Back-Up Counsel, And Service Information
`
`Todd M. Siegel (Lead), todd.siegel@klarquist.com, Reg. No. 73,232, Andrew
`
`M. Mason (Back-up), andrew.mason@klarquist.com, Reg. No. 64,034, and Robert
`
`
`1 On November 10, 2016, the District Court granted Twitter’s Partial Motion
`to Dismiss, finding the claims of the ’304 Patent to be ineligible for patenting under
`35 U.S.C. § 101. ECF No. 39. Patent Owner attempted to appeal the decision to the
`Federal Circuit, but the appeal was rejected as there is no final judgment as to the
`’304 Patent.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,792,304
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`T. Cruzen
`
`(pending pro hac vice admission)
`
`rob.cruzen@klarquist.com,
`
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP, 121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600, Portland,
`
`Oregon, 97204, Tel: 503-595-5300, Fax: 503-595-5301. Twitter consents to service
`
`via email at the above email addresses.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), Power of Attorney executed by Twitter for
`
`appointing the above counsel is concurrently filed.
`
`D.
`
`Payment of Fees
`
`An electronic payment in the amount of $26,800 for the fee specified by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.15(a) is being paid at the time of filing this petition, charged to deposit
`
`account no. 02-4550. Any adjustments in the fee may be debited/credited to the
`
`deposit account.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PER SECTION 42.104(A)
`
`Twitter certifies that the ’304 Patent is available for inter partes review, and
`
`that Twitter is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`IV. REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`This Petition presents a reasonable likelihood of success that Petitioner will
`
`prevail with respect to at least one (indeed all) of the Challenged Claims of the ’304
`
`Patent. Petitioner therefore asks that the Board review the accompanying prior art
`
`and analysis, institute a trial for inter partes review, and cancel these claims as
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,792,304
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`unpatentable.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`A. Challenged Claims
`
`Twitter requests inter partes review of 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 under 35 U.S.C. § 103; and claims 1, 4, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds For Challenges
`
`Ground #1: Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 26, and 28 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lahti in view of “Current TV mobile” and “Current TV
`
`FAQ.”
`
`Ground #2: Claim 11 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lahti in
`
`view of “Current TV mobile,” “Current TV FAQ,” and Washington.
`
`Ground #3: Claims 12, 13, 29, and 30 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) over Lahti in view of “Current TV mobile,” “Current TV FAQ,” Washington,
`
`and Franken.
`
`Ground #4: Claims 17, 19-21 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Lahti in view of Chen and the Admitted Art.
`
`Ground #5: Claims 22-25 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Lahti in view of “Current TV mobile,” “Current TV FAQ,” and the Admitted Art.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,792,304
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`Ground #6: Claims 1, 4, 5, and 9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`over Lahti.
`
`For each ground, the petition demonstrates at least a reasonable likelihood that
`
`each Challenged Claim is unpatentable.
`
`VI. BACKGROUND
`
`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.
`
`The ’304 Patent is directed at creating and sharing web content. Specifically,
`
`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 at 1:17-202.) “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. at 1:21-28.)
`
`
`2 Citations herein to X:Y are to column:line number.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,792,304
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`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 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. at 1:31-38.)
`
`A. The Prosecution History
`
`As noted above, the ’471 Application was filed on July 18, 2011. On
`
`September 14, 2012, the Patent Office rejected the application for multiple reasons,
`
`including because the then pending claims were obvious over the prior art. Then
`
`pending claims 1, 4, 6-10, 14, 15, 21, 30, and 32 were deemed unpatentable as
`
`obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0243692 to Trimper in
`
`view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0081116 to Barasch.
`
`The applicants responded by amending the claims. (See, e.g., Ex. 102, p. 112.)
`
`The Examiner then allowed the claims, making the following statement of reasons
`
`for allowance:
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,792,304
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`
`(Id., p. 62.)
`
`B.
`
`Level Of Ordinary Skill
`
`Here, the pertinent art pertains to aspects of creating and sharing multimedia,
`
`such as video data, and distributing the content to others via the Internet. At the time
`
`of the alleged invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have
`
`understood how to create various types of multimedia applications, network
`
`architecture, and associated distribution methods disclosed in the ’304 Patent, and
`
`would have possessed (i) a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Electrical and/or
`
`Computer Engineering, or equivalent training, and (ii) approximately two years of
`
`experience in network architecture and multimedia systems, including creating and
`
`distributing multimedia. (Ex. 1003, ¶44.) Lack of work experience would have been
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,792,304
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`remedied by additional education, and vice versa. (Id.)
`
`VII. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`A. Claims For Which Review Is Requested
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests review and cancellation of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9,
`
`11-17, 19-26, 28, 29 and 30 of the ’304 Patent (Ex. 1001) under 35 U.S.C. § 311.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds For Challenge
`
`Each Challenged Claim is unpatentable as obvious under § 103, and claims 1,
`
`4, and 9 are unpatentable as anticipated under § 102(b).
`
`VIII. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`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 construction. See id.
`
`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 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)
`
`Petitioner proposes the following broadest reasonable constructions:
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,792,304
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`
`1.
`
`“Predetermined constraints” (all claims)
`
`The ’304 Patent specification does not provide an explicit definition for
`
`“predetermined constraints.” However, the specification discusses “predetermined
`
`constraints” as follows:
`
`Video content is captured on a user device and formatted
`
`according to predetermined constraints using a web application
`
`or an installed application. (Ex. 1001 at 9:12-15.)
`
`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. (Id. at 10:56-61.)
`
`The specification further provides specific examples of “predetermined constraints.”
`
`(See, e.g., Id., at 11:1-48.)
`
`Thus, the broadest reasonable construction 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.” (Ex. 1003, ¶50.)
`
`2.
`
`“Transcoding”
`
`The ’304 Patent uses “transcoding” in its ordinarily understood sense. (Ex.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,792,304
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`1003, ¶51.) 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. 3.) 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 at 10:14-20.)
`
`
`
`Thus, the broadest reasonable construction of “transcoding” is “converting
`
`from one video format to another.” (Ex. 1003, ¶52.)
`
`3.
`
`“Buffered on the client
`computing device using scripts” (claim 5)
`
`The ’304 Patent uses the phrase “buffered on the client computing device
`
`using scripts” in its ordinary sense. (Id., ¶53.) Although it does not define “buffered,”
`
`the specification does expressly explain what it means by scripts: “A computer
`
`program (also known as a program, software, software application, script, or code)
`
`can be written in any form of programming language, including compiled or
`
`interpreted languages, and it can be deployed in any form, including as a stand-alone
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,792,304
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`program or as a module, component, subroutine, or other unit suitable for use in a
`
`computing environment.” (Ex. 1001 at 26:5-12.) That a “script” is understood to
`
`mean a computer program is consistent with the understanding of a POSITA. (Ex.
`
`1003, ¶53.).
`
`Further, a POSITA would understand “buffered” to mean “using memory
`
`space to temporarily store data.” (Id., ¶54.) Thus, the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of “buffered on the client computing device using scripts” is
`
`“temporarily storing data in memory of the client computing device using a
`
`computer program, software application, or other unit of computer code.” (Id.,
`
`¶55.)
`
`IX. GROUND #1: LAHTI IN VIEW OF
`“CURRENT TV MOBILE” AND “CURRENT TV FAQ”
`
`Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14-16, 26, and 28 are unpatentable as obvious over Lahti
`
`in view of “Current TV Mobile” and “Current TV FAQ.”
`
`A. Overview Of The Prior Art
`
`1.
`
`Lahti
`
`Lahti generally describes the MobiCon video production tool, which allows
`
`users to record video clips with their camera phones and share them with others. (Ex.
`
`1006, p. 1.) The user-generated video clips are uploaded to a server system, through
`
`which videos may be shared with others. (Id.) Lahti teaches that the MobiCon
`
`application is downloaded over the air to a mobile camera-phone. (Id.)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,792,304
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`
`MobiCon operates on the Candela system architecture. (Id., p. 4.) Candela is
`
`“named after the European ITEA project CANDELA (Content Analysis, Networked
`
`Delivery and Architectures) [and] was developed as a solution for general video
`
`management. It includes tools for video creation, analysis, annotation, storage,
`
`search and delivery phases.” (Id.) Figure 2 from Lahti illustrates the Candela and
`
`MobiCon system architecture:
`
`
`
`Lahti was published in 2006 in MULTIMEDIA ON MOBILE DEVICES II, edited
`
`by Reiner Creutzburg et al., Proc. of SPIE-IS&T Electronic Imaging, SPIE Vol.
`
`6074, 60740O. (See, e.g., Ex. 1005, ¶¶3-5 (testimony—from Eric Pepper, SPIE
`
`Director of Publications—that Ex. 1006 was published in 2006); Ex. 1012, ¶¶32-46
`
`(testimony from Scott Bennett regarding same).) Thus, Lahti qualifies as prior art to
`
`the ’304 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it was published more than one
`
`year before the earliest possible effective filing date of the ’304 Patent.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,792,304
`
`Page 11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The Current TV References
`
`Current TV, which by at least 2007, was an interactive television channel in
`
`the U.S. that permitted viewers to submit video content to be included in the
`
`television programming. (See Ex. 1018, p. 8) (PC Magazine article describing
`
`Current TV.) Current TV had an associated website, www.currenttv.com (see id.),
`
`which described the channel’s programming, scheduling, promotions, as well as how
`
`viewers could participate in the programming by submitting their own content.
`
`Attached as Exhibits 1009-1011 are pages from the website that were publicly
`
`available by December 31, 2007. (See Ex. 1016, pp. 1, 11-14, 19-29 (Affidavit of
`
`Christopher Butler, Office Manager at the Internet Archive, authenticating pages
`
`corresponding to Exs. 1009-1011).) Each page constitutes a printed publication that
`
`qualifies as prior art to the ’304 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because each was
`
`publicly available more than one year before the earliest possible effective filing date
`
`of the ’304 Patent.
`
`Specifically, Exhibit 1009, titled “create & upload: mobile” (“Current TV
`
`mobile”), was archived on June 16, 2006. (Ex. 1009, pp. 1-2.) Exhibit 1010, titled
`
`“Submission Guidelines,” was archived on May 2, 2007 (Ex. 1010, pp. 1-2.). Exhibit
`
`1011, titled “FAQ” (“Current TV FAQ”), was archived on March 15, 2007. (Ex.
`
`1011, pp. 1-2.) Exhibit 1009 includes hyperlinks to both “submission guidelines”
`
`and “faq.” (Ex. 1009, p. 2.)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,792,304
`
`Page 12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`
`B. Motivation To Combine Lahti And Current TV
`
`This Petition relies on Lahti for disclosing most of the limitations of the
`
`Challenged Claims. Lahti generally describes “a video management system
`
`comprising a video server and a mobile camera-phone application called MobiCon,
`
`which allows users to capture videos, annotate them with metadata, specify digital
`
`rights management (DRM) settings, upload the videos over the cellular network, and
`
`share them with others.” (Ex. 1006, p. 1.) This Petition relies on “Current TV FAQ”
`
`for disclosing video length limits and limitations relating to using video clips in
`
`television broadcasts, as detailed below.
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to look to and combine the teachings
`
`of Lahti with the Current TV references. (Ex. 1003, ¶¶69-76.) Current TV discloses
`
`a practical application of using the teachings of Lahti, namely to take the video
`
`content created using the MobiCon application and submit it to be included in the
`
`Current TV programming. Indeed, Current TV provided a monetary reason for Lahti
`
`users to create and submit such video content for inclusion in a linear television
`
`programming broadcast. The Current TV references represent pages of a single
`
`website, so it would be obvious to combine them, even assuming they constitute
`
`separate publications.
`
`More specifically, “Current TV mobile” and “Current TV FAQ” each
`
`describes uploading user-created videos for distribution through a broadcast
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,792,304
`
`Page 13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`television network. Like Lahti, “Current TV mobile” and “Current TV FAQ” each
`
`teaches imposing constraints on uploaded videos, such as restrictions on the length
`
`of videos that are uploaded for inclusion into the TV programming schedule. (Ex.
`
`1009, p. 2; Ex. 1011, p. 3.) Lahti and the Current TV references all teach converting
`
`video data uploaded by users into an appropriate format for further distribution. (Ex.
`
`1006, p. 6; Ex. 1010, p. 2 (“The Video Egg Publisher can capture directly from
`
`hundreds of types of devices and reads dozens of formats.”).) (Ex. 1003, ¶¶69-75.)
`
`Lahti describes imposing parameters on video clips, and “Current TV FAQ”
`
`discloses similar and additional parameters, including video length restrictions. (Id.,
`
`¶¶73-74.)
`
`Combining these teachings would have yielded predictable results as a
`
`POSITA would use the concepts and disclosures from the references for their
`
`intended purposes, in ways in which a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation
`
`of success. (Id., ¶76.)
`
`C.
`
`Independent Claims 1 And 26 Are Unpatentable
`
`As shown below, Lahti combined with “Current TV mobile” and “Current TV
`
`FAQ” teach each limitation of independent claims 1 and 26 rendering each
`
`unpatentable as obvious.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,792,304
`
`Page 14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`1.
`
`[a]3 A method performed by data processing apparatus, the method
`
`comprising:
`
`receiving video data from a client computing device at a server
`
`system,
`
`Lahti discloses limitation 1[a].
`
`
`
`
`
`First, Lahti discloses servers that perform data processing functions to process
`
`videos captured and uploaded by users:
`
`Architecture is based on the need to provide wireless access over
`
`a mobile phone network to enable storing video clips on the
`
`server where it is also possible to run more computation-
`
`intensive operations such as video transcoding. (Ex. 1006, p.
`
`5; see Fig. 3 below) (emphases added)4:
`
`
`3 This Petition annotates the claim limitations with [x] for ease of reference.
`4 Bold emphases added throughout this Petition.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,792,304
`
`Page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1006, Fig. 3, p. 5.)5
`
`Therefore, Lahti’s teaching of methods for video capturing and processing
`
`those videos at a server discloses “a method performed by a data processing
`
`apparatus.” (Ex. 1003, ¶¶77-80.)
`
`Second, Lahti teaches receiving video data at a server system. (Id., ¶¶81-82.)
`
`In particular, Lahti teaches receiving “video data” from a “mobile phone” at an
`
`“Upload Gateway” within the “server.” “The UploadGateway serves multiple
`
`MobiCon users and provides access to the Candela system. Figure 3 presents an
`
`architectural overview of the UploadGateway.” (Ex. 1006, p. 6.)
`
`
`5 Figures are annotated, and color coding is added, for ease of reference
`throughout this Petition.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,792,304
`
`Page 16
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 3, p. 5.)
`
`Within the server (depicted above), a VideoManager Servlet receives video
`
`uploaded by users. “The VideoManager servlet takes care of all the functionalities
`
`receiving video data from the UploadClient to the UploadGateway. The received
`
`video and metadata descriptions are stored temporarily, the video clip is transcoded,
`
`a key frame picture is extracted from the video, and metadata is finally formatted to
`
`the MPEG-7 XML format. All data including video clips, keyframes, and MPEG-7
`
`are added to the database via Candela Interface.” (Id., p. 6.)
`
`Third, Lahti teaches that the received video data is “from a client computing
`
`device.” Lahti describes MobiCon, which executes on mobile phones equipped with
`
`video cameras to upload videos from those mobile devices.
`
`We present a video management system comprising a video
`
`server and a mobile camera-phone application called MobiCon,
`
`which allows users to capture videos…, upload the videos over
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,792,304
`
`Page 17
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`
`
`
`the cellular network, and share them with others. Once stored
`
`in the video server, users can then search their personal video
`
`collection via a web interface, and watch the video clips using a
`
`wide range of terminals. (Id., p. 1.)
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 1, p. 2.) As depicted in Figure 1 above, users capture video with a mobile
`
`phone and use the device to upload the video a video server. “With MobiCon, this is
`
`a simple process: Alice selects the video clip using a menu, choos