UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`TWITTER, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YOUTOO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`Issued: Dec. 3, 2013
`Application No.: 13/571,476
`Filed: Aug. 10, 2012
`Title: Content Creation and Distribution System
`_________________
`
`PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,601,506
`
`
`
`

`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 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 CHALLENGES ........................................................ 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
`
`“Video length defined by the instructions,
`with the video length predefined at the server
`
`Page i
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`
`system in accordance with a time slot in a linear
`television programming broadcast” (all claims) .......................10
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“Transcoding” (all claims) ........................................................10
`
`“Buffered on the client
`computing device using scripts” (claim 5) ...............................11
`
`IX. GROUND #1: LAHTI
`COMBINED WITH CONWAY AND NOVAK ..........................................12
`
`A. Overview Of The Prior Art .................................................................12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Lahti ..........................................................................................12
`
`Conway .....................................................................................13
`
`Novak ........................................................................................14
`
`B. Motivation To Combine ......................................................................14
`
`C.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 23, And 26 Are Unpatentable ........................19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................19
`
`Claim 23 ....................................................................................38
`
`Claim 26 ....................................................................................45
`
`D. Dependent Claims 4-8, 11-15,
`24, 25, 29, And 30 Are Unpatentable ..................................................50
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................50
`
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................51
`
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................52
`
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................53
`
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................54
`
`Claim 11 ....................................................................................55
`
`Page ii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`
`Claim 13 ....................................................................................56
`
`Claims 14 and 29.......................................................................57
`
`Claim 15 ....................................................................................58
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10. Claim 24 ....................................................................................59
`
`11. Claims 25 and 30.......................................................................60
`
`X. GROUND #2: LAHTI IN VIEW OF NOVAK
`AND “CURRENT TV MOBILE” AND “CURRENT TV FAQ” ................61
`
`A. Overview Of The Current TV References ..........................................61
`
`B. Motivation To Combine With Lahti And Novak ................................62
`
`C.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 23, And 26 Are Unpatentable ........................64
`
`D.
`
`The Dependent Claims Are Unpatentable ...........................................65
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 4-5, 7, 8, 13, and 24 ......................................................65
`
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................66
`
`Claim 11 ....................................................................................67
`
`Claims 14 and 29.......................................................................67
`
`Claim 15 ....................................................................................68
`
`Claims 25 and 30.......................................................................68
`
`XI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................69
`
`
`
`
`
`Page iii
`
`

`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`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) .............................................................................. 8
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................... 13, 14, 61
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................................................................................................3, 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ......................................................................................................1, 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 .................................................................................................1, 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`Page iv
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506 (“the ’506 Patent”)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`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. 2009/0157697, titled
`“Systems And Methods For Creating Variable Length Clips From
`A Media Stream” to Conway et al. (“Conway”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0104099, titled
`“System And Method To Provide Media Programs For Synthetic
`Channels” to Novak (“Novak”)
`
`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
`
`“Online Video Gets Real,” John R. Quain, PC Magazine (Feb. 7,
`2007)
`
`No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`
`
`Page v
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311, 314(a), 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, 4-8, 11, 13-15, 23-26, 29, and 30 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,601,506 (Ex. 1001, the “’506 Patent”).
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`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 ’506 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 ’506 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
`’506 Patent.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,601,506
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`
`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 $23,400 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 ’506 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 ’506
`
`Patent. Petitioner therefore asks that the Board review the accompanying prior art
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,601,506
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`
`and analysis, institute a trial for inter partes review, and cancel these claims as
`
`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`unpatentable.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES
`
`A. Challenged Claims
`
`Twitter requests inter partes review of claims 1, 4-8, 11, 13-15, 23-26, 29,
`
`and 30 (each a “Challenged Claim,” and collectively the “Challenged Claims”) of
`
`the ’506 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds For Challenges
`
`Ground #1: Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 13-15, 23-26, 29, and 30 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over “A Mobile Phone-based Context-aware Video
`
`Management Application,” authored by Lahti al., (“Lahti”) in view of U.S. Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2009/0157697 to Conway et al. (“Conway”), and
`
`further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0104099 to Novak
`
`(“Novak”).
`
`Ground #2: Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 13-15, 23-26, 29, and 30 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lahti in view of Novak, and further in view of
`
`“Current TV mobile” and “Current TV FAQ.”
`
`For each ground, the Petition demonstrates at least a reasonable likelihood
`
`that each Challenged Claim of the ’506 Patent is unpatentable.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,601,506
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`
`VI. BACKGROUND
`
`The ’506 Patent, titled “Content Creation And Distribution System,” issued
`
`on December 3, 2013. The ’506 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`13/571,476 (the “’476 Application”), filed on August 10, 2012, which is a
`
`continuation of Application No. 13/185,471, filed on July 18, 2011, which is a
`
`continuation-in-part of Application No. 13/013,775, filed on January 25, 2011.
`
`The ’506 Patent is directed at creating and sharing web content. The patent
`
`admits that by 2011 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 1:22-252.)
`
`“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 1:26-33.) 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.” (Id. at 1:36-39.)
`
`
`2 Citations herein to X:Y are to column:line number.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,601,506
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`
`
`A. The Prosecution History
`
`As noted above, the ’476 Application was filed on August 10, 2012. On
`
`November 14, 2012, the Patent Office rejected the application for many reasons,
`
`including because the then pending claims were obvious over the prior art.
`
`Specifically, then pending claims 1-4, 8-10, 13-15, 26-28, and 30 were deemed
`
`unpatentable as obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0104099
`
`to Novak in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0056119 to
`
`Moynihan.
`
`The applicants responded by amending the claims. (See, e.g., Ex. 1002, p.
`
`113.) On March 12, 2013, the Patent Office again rejected the claims over the prior
`
`art. For example, then pending claims 1-4, 8-15, 26, 27, 29, 30, and 34 were deemed
`
`unpatentable as obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0104099
`
`to Novak in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0056119 to
`
`Moynihan in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0306815 to
`
`Emerson et al.
`
`On April 2, 2013, the applicants initiated an interview with the Examiner. The
`
`substance of the interview follows:
`
`(Id., p. 74.)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,601,506
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`On April 15, 2013, the applicants amended the claims. For example, claim 1
`
`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`was amended as follows:
`
`
`
`(Id., p. 50.)
`
`The Examiner allowed the claims following this amendment.
`
`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 of the ’506 Patent, 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 ’506 Patent, and would have possessed (i) a Bachelor’s degree in Computer
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,601,506
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`
`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, ¶41.) Lack of
`
`work experience would have been 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, 4-8, 11,
`
`13-15, 23-26, 29, and 30 of the ’506 Patent (Ex. 1001) under 35 U.S.C. § 311.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds For Challenge
`
`Each Challenged Claim is unpatentable as obvious under § 103.
`
`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 Patent Office 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.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,601,506
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`
`Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`Petitioner proposes the following broadest reasonable constructions:
`
`1.
`
`“Predetermined constraints” (all claims)
`
`The ’506 Patent specification does not provide an explicit definition for
`
`“predetermined constraints.” However, the specification provides the following
`
`discussion and examples of “predetermined constraints.”:
`
`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 9:17-20.)
`
`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. …
`
`The client 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
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,601,506
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`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
`
`clip.” (Id. at 10:61-11:53.)
`
`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, ¶46.)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,601,506
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`
`
`2.
`
`“Video length defined by the instructions,
`with the video length predefined at the server
`system in accordance with a time slot in a linear
`television programming broadcast” (all claims)
`
`As discussed above, the ’506 Patent specification provides that video length
`
`is an example of a “predetermined constraint” such that the recording is “suitable for
`
`including in time slots of linear programming (e.g., 15 seconds or 30 seconds, etc.).”
`
`(Id. at 11:35-39.) The specification also explains that “traditional television
`
`programming for a television network is linear.” (Id. at 2:12-21.) The ’506 Patent
`
`describes using “a set top box . . . that receives” traditional television programming
`
`signals and “play[s them] on a television or monitor.” (Id. at 17:23-25.)
`
`Thus, the broadest reasonable construction of this limitation is “computer
`
`instructions provided by a server computing device to a client computing device
`
`that identify a video length suitable for including video into a traditional
`
`television program or broadcast.” (Ex. 1003, ¶48.)
`
`3.
`
`“Transcoding” (all claims)
`
`The ’506 Patent uses “transcoding” in its ordinarily understood sense. (Id.,
`
`¶49.) 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 ’506 Patent uses the term. For
`
`example, the ’506 Patent provides:
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,601,506
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`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 10:19-25.)
`
`
`
`Thus, the broadest reasonable construction of “transcoding” is “converting
`
`from one video format to another.” (Ex. 1003, ¶¶49-51.)
`
`4.
`
`“Buffered on the client
`computing device using scripts” (claim 5)
`
`The ’506 Patent uses the phrase “buffered on the client computing device
`
`using scripts” in its ordinary sense. 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 program
`
`or as a module, component, subroutine, or other unit suitable for use in a computing
`
`environment.” (Ex. 1001 at 26:13-19.) That a “script” is understood to mean a
`
`computer program is consistent with the understanding of a POSITA. (Ex. 1003,
`
`¶52.)
`
`Further, a POSITA would understand “buffered” to mean “using memory
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,601,506
`
`Page 11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`
`space to temporarily store data.” (Ex. 1003, ¶53.) 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.)
`
`IX. GROUND #1: LAHTI COMBINED WITH CONWAY AND NOVAK
`
`Each Challenged Claim is unpatentable as obvious to a POSITA in view of
`
`Lahti, combined with Conway, and further combined with Novak.
`
`A. Overview Of The Prior Art
`
`1.
`
`Lahti
`
`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.) 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.)
`
`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) was developed as a solution for general video
`
`management. It includes tools for video creation, analysis, annotation, storage,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,601,506
`
`Page 12
`
`

`

`
`search and delivery phases.” (Id.) Figure 2 from Lahti illustrates the Candela and
`
`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`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 ’506 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 ’506 Patent.
`
`2.
`
`Conway
`
`Conway is a published patent application generally directed at creating
`
`systems methods that allow consumers to create media clips, such as television
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,601,506
`
`Page 13
`
`

`

`
`content, and to share these clips via networks, such as the Internet. (Ex. 1007, ¶¶4-
`
`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`6.)
`
`Conway qualifies as prior art to the ’506 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`because it was published on June 18, 2009, more than one year before the earliest
`
`possible effective filing date of the ’506 Patent.
`
`3.
`
`Novak
`
`Novak is a published patent application directed at transmitting “audio and/or
`
`video information over communication channels that simulate television broadcast
`
`channels.” (Ex. 1008, ¶3.)
`
`Novak qualifies as prior art to the ’506 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`because it was published on August 1, 2002, more than one year before the earliest
`
`possible effective filing date of the ’506 Patent.3
`
`B. Motivation To Combine
`
`This Petition relies on Lahti for disclosing most of the limitations of the
`
`Challenged Claims. The Petition relies on Conway for its disclosure of a maximum
`
`allowable clip length. A POSITA would have been motivated to look to and combine
`
`the teachings of Lahti and Conway. (Ex. 1003, ¶¶74-78.) Lahti and Conway are in
`
`similar fields and address overlapping and complementary concepts. Lahti describes
`
`using code provided by a server executed on a client device to capture video in
`
`
`3 Novak later issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,103,905 on September 5, 2006.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,601,506
`
`Page 14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`
`accordance with constraints provided by the server, and uploading the captured
`
`video to the server for distribution. Conway describes various constraints that can
`
`be imposed upon user-created videos prior to the time they are uploaded to a server
`
`for distribution. Conway and Lahti both disclose capturing user-created clips via
`
`cameras connected to client computing devices. “The UIManager coordinates the
`
`video capture using the mobile phone’s camera, the saving of the video data to the
`
`Java Record Store system.” (Ex. 1006, p. 5.) “The media source 115 may include
`
`any source of media content, including…a security or other video camera; and/or
`
`the like.” (Ex. 1007, ¶29) (emphases added).4 Lahti and Conway also both teach
`
`transcoding video data uploaded by users into an appropriate format for further
`
`distribution. (Ex. 1006, p. 6; Ex. 1007, ¶48.)
`
`Lahti and Conway teach complementary approaches to imposing constraints
`
`on the user-created clips uploaded to a server, such as limits on the quality of clips
`
`created and uploaded, and limits on resolution and frame rate. (Ex. 1006, p. 6 (“A
`
`new video clip is captured in Capture Screen using Mobile Media API and it is
`
`recorded according to 3GPP specification using AMR coding for audio and H.263
`
`at 176x144 pixels size at 15 frames per second for video.”); Ex. 1007, ¶32 (“Other
`
`rules may restrict the number of users who have access to a particular clip, the quality
`
`
`4 Bold emphases added throughout this Petition.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,601,506
`
`Page 15
`
`

`

`
`of clips that can be created (e.g., any limits on resolution, bit or frame rate, or any
`
`IPR2017-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,506
`
`other parameter.)”).)
`
`Moreover, Conway demonstrates techniques for imposing constraints on
`
`uploaded video that would have been known to a POSITA. Incorporating the clip
`
`length constraint into Lahti would have required only routine programming skills;
`
`no more than what would have been required of a POSITA to implement Lahti alone.
`
`(Ex. 1003, ¶77.) Indeed, the system disclosed by Lahti contains the environment
`
`needed to support such modification. Lahti discloses a HTTP server system,
`
`including a database for storage of user-related and video-related information. Lahti
`
`further discloses that software for the mobile camera-phones may be downloaded
`
`from the server. Thus, the proposed modification to Lahti to incorporate the
`
`teachings of Conway would be a simple, straightforward reprogramming of the
`
`MobiCon application and straightforward additions to the HTTP server system and
`
`back-end software. This would not require undue experimentation and would yield
`
`predictable results. (Id.)
`
`A POSITA would have recognized that by combining Conway’s teachings of
`
`using a server-provided constraint on “maximum allowable clip length” (Ex. 1007,
`
`¶17) and Lahti’s system for capturing and uploading videos to a server in compliance
`
`with other server-defined constraints, system bandwidth would be preserved and
`
`storage needs of the server hosting user-provided videos would be minimized. (Ex.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,601,506
`
`Page 16
`
`

`

`
`1003, ¶78.) Thus, a POSITA would have used Conway’s maximum video length
`
`teachings in Lahti because it would