`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of: Gould et al.
`U.S. Patent No.: 9,247,226
`Issue Date:
`
`January 26, 2016
`
`Appl. Serial No.: 13/609,157
`Filing Date:
` September 10, 2012
`Title:
`METHOD AND STORAGE DEVICE FOR EXPANDING
`AND CONTRACTING CONTINUOUS PLAY MEDIA
`SEAMLESSLY
`
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0010IP1
`IPR Control No. IPR2018-00059
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MICHAEL KOTZIN
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`1.
`I have been retained on behalf of Unified Patents, Inc. to offer
`
`technical opinions relating to U.S. Patent No. 9,247,226 (“the ’226 Patent”), and
`
`prior art references relating to its subject matter. I have reviewed the ’226 Patent,
`
`relevant excerpts of the prosecution history of the ’226 Patent, and relevant
`
`excerpts of the reexamination file histories of related patents, U.S. Patents
`
`7,890,648 (“the ’648 Patent”), 7,467,218 (“the ’218 Patent”), 6,615,270 (“the ’270
`
`Patent”), and 6,393,158 (“the ’158 Patent”). I have also reviewed the following
`
`prior art references:
`
`Prior Art Reference
`U.S. Patent No. 5,737,552 (“Lavallee”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,539,871 (“Gibson”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,465,215 (“Strickland”)
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,359,712 (“Cohen”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,594,469 (“Freeman”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,101,364 (“Davenport”)
`
`International Publication No. WO 98/04984 (“Efrat”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,680,562 (“Conrad”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,737,553 (“Bartok”)
`
`2.
`
`Counsel has informed me that I should consider these materials
`
`through the lens of one of ordinary skill in the art related to the ’226 Patent at the
`
`time of the earliest possible priority date of the ’226 Patent, and I have done so
`
`during my review of these materials. The application leading to the ’226 Patent
`
`was filed on September 10, 2012, and claims priority through a chain of
`
`continuations to an application filed on April 23, 1999 (“the Critical Date”).
`
`Counsel has informed me that the Critical Date represents the earliest priority date
`
`to which the challenged claims of ’226 Patent are entitled, and I have therefore
`
`used that Critical Date in my analysis herein.
`
`3.
`
`I have no financial interest in the party or in the outcome of this
`
`proceeding. I am being compensated for my work as an expert on an hourly basis.
`
`My compensation is not dependent on the outcome of these proceedings or the
`
` 2
`
`
`
`content of my opinions.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`4. My opinions, as explained below, are based on my education,
`
`experience, and expertise in the fields relating to the ’226 patent. Unless otherwise
`
`stated, my testimony below refers to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`fields as of the Critical Date, or before. Any figures that appear within this
`
`document have been prepared with the assistance of Counsel and reflect my
`
`understanding of the ’226 Patent and the prior art discussed below.
`
`5.
`
`This declaration is organized as follows:
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 
`Qualifications and Experience ............................................................. 4 
`Summary of Conclusions ..................................................................... 6 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................ 7 
`Legal Understandings .......................................................................... 7 
`A.  Terminology ......................................................................................... 7 
`B. 
`Legal Standards for Anticipation ......................................................... 8 
`C. 
`Legal Standards for Obviousness ........................................................ 8 
`Overview of the ’226 Patent .............................................................. 13 
`A.  Relevant Field and Time .................................................................... 13 
`B.  Description of the ’226 Patent ........................................................... 14 
`C.  Challenged Claims of the ’226 Patent ............................................... 16 
`D.  Claim Terms ....................................................................................... 18 
`a.  “primary content continuous play media stream” .......................... 18 
`b.  “spatiotemporally continuous” ....................................................... 18 
`c.  “expansion cue container” .............................................................. 18 
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`IV. 
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`

`

`
`
`VII. 
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`E.  Discussion of Lavallee, Gibson, Cohen, Strickland, Freeman, and
`Conrad in relation to the Challenged Claims .............................................. 19 
`a.  Overview of Lavallee ..................................................................... 19 
`b.  Claim 1 ............................................................................................ 20 
`c.  Claim 7 ............................................................................................ 66 
`F.  Discussion of Davenport, Efrat, and Bartok in relation to the
`Challenged Claims ...................................................................................... 70 
`a.  Overview of Davenport .................................................................. 70 
`b.  Claim 1 ............................................................................................ 75 
`c.  Claims 2-6 ....................................................................................... 95 
`d.  Claims 7-10 ..................................................................................... 98 
`e.  Claims 11 and 12 ..........................................................................103 
`Secondary Considerations ................................................................108 
`
`
`
`II. Qualifications and Experience
`6.
`I received a B.S. in chemistry and a B.S. in electrical engineering
`
`from the University of Illinois in 1975, an M.S. in electrical engineering from
`
`Northwestern University in 1977, and a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and
`
`computer science from Northwestern University in 1981. During my graduate
`
`study at Northwestern (1975-1981), I performed research on communications and
`
`signal processing. My research dissertation was titled “Short Range
`
`Communication Using Diffusely Scattered Infrared Radiation.”
`
`7.
`
`I have been involved with Motorola, Inc. in various types of
`
`professional roles between 1975 to 2009. Between 1975 and 1989, I worked for
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`various Motorola Research labs in Illinois, where I worked to develop technology
`
`developments related to private and public radio communication systems.
`
`8.
`
`Between 1989 and 1998, I was the Vice President of Technical Staff
`
`and Director of Research and Advanced Technology in Motorola’s Cellular
`
`Infrastructure and Networks division. Between 1998 and 2007, I transitioned to
`
`the Office of the Chief Technology Officer for Motorola’s Mobile Devices
`
`division. In these roles, I provided leadership and strategic directions for the
`
`adoption and creation of new technology for cellular base station and handheld
`
`devices.
`
`9.
`
`Between 2006 and 2009, I was the Vice President of Technical Staff
`
`in the Corporate Law Department of Motorola’s Patent Operations division. In this
`
`role, I created technology portfolio strategy across businesses including
`
`quantitative goals for new and retained intellectual property assets. I also managed
`
`processes and corporate-wide teams related to creating and maintaining patent
`
`portfolios.
`
`10. Since 2009, I have been the President of MDK Consulting, Inc.,
`
`where I regularly provide technical consulting services on all aspects of wireless
`
`systems, products and technology.
`
`11. Over the past several decades I have performed extensive research on
`
`various aspects of systems, devices, and networks that acquire, store, process and
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`transmit information. My research has addressed software, algorithms, hardware,
`
`networking, protocols and other aspects of these systems and devices, and has
`
`included work on wireless mobile devices and systems, signal processing and
`
`communications, hardware design methodologies, and cybersecurity. For example,
`
`in the 1970s and 1980s, I worked on technologies that formed the basis and was
`
`essential to several new digital radio systems (cellular, public safety, and private
`
`mobile).
`
`12.
`
`I am an inventor on approximately 133 issued U.S. patents and over
`
`500 issued patents worldwide in areas including signal processing, data
`
`compression, communications, and wireless systems. I have published
`
`approximately 20 technical articles in peer-reviewed engineering journals and
`
`conference proceedings.
`
`13.
`
`In addition to my professional experience, I have previously taught
`
`courses in electrical engineering at Northwestern University as an Adjunct
`
`Professor. I have also served as Chairman and member of numerous Motorola
`
`patent committees.
`
`14. My curriculum vitae is attached to this declaration as Appendix A.
`
`III. Summary of Conclusions
`15.
`In my opinion, claims 1-12 of the ’226 Patent are rendered obvious by
`
` 6
`
`
`
`the prior art as follows:
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`’226 Patent Claims Obvious over Prior Art
`1, 7
`Lavallee in view of Gibson, Cohen, and Strickland
`1-10
`Davenport in view of Efrat
`11, 12
`Davenport in view Efrat and Bartok
`
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`16.
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the Critical
`
`Date (“POSITA”) would have had at least an undergraduate degree in an academic
`
`discipline emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software technologies,
`
`in combination with training or at least one to two years of related work experience
`
`with streaming technologies. Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill with less
`
`than the amount of educational training noted above could have had a
`
`correspondingly greater amount of experience in the relevant technologies.
`
`V. Legal Understandings
`A. Terminology
`17.
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that claim
`
`terminology must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during an inter
`
`partes review proceeding. I have been informed by Counsel and understand that
`
`this means the claims should be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably
`
`allow, but that such interpretation should not be inconsistent with the patent's
`
`specification and with usage of the terms by a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of invention. Counsel has also informed me, and I understand, that this
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`may yield interpretations that are broader than the interpretation applied during
`
`District Court or ITC proceedings.
`
`B.
`18.
`
`Legal Standards for Anticipation
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that documents and
`
`materials that qualify as prior art can render a patent claim unpatentable as
`
`anticipated. I am informed by Counsel and understand that all prior art references
`
`are to be looked at from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`19.
`
` I am informed by Counsel and understand that a challenged claim is
`
`unpatentable as “anticipated” under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if it is determined that all the
`
`limitations of the claim are described in a single prior art reference. I am informed
`
`by Counsel and understand that, to anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must
`
`disclose, either expressly or inherently, each and every limitation of that claim and
`
`enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention.
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that in an inter
`
`partes review, “the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of
`
`unpatentability,” including a proposition of anticipation, “by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence.” 35 U.S.C. §316(e).
`
`C. Legal Standards for Obviousness
`21.
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that documents and
`
`materials that qualify as prior art can render a patent claim unpatentable as
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`obvious. I am informed by Counsel and understand that all prior art references are
`
`to be looked at from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention, and that this viewpoint prevents one from using his or her
`
`own insight or hindsight in deciding whether a claim is obvious.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that a claim is
`
`unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (in the pre-AIA form of that
`
`statute that applies to the ‘226 Patent) “if the differences between the subject
`
`matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
`
`whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” I am
`
`informed by Counsel and understand that obviousness may be based upon a
`
`combination of references. I am informed by Counsel and understand that the
`
`combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
`
`obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. However, I am
`
`informed by Counsel and understand that a patent claim composed of several
`
`elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements
`
`was, independently, known in the prior art.
`
`23.
`
`I am informed by Counsel and understand that when a patented
`
`invention is a combination of known elements, a court must determine whether
`
`there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`claimed by the patent at issue by considering the teachings of prior art references,
`
`the effects of demands known to people working in the field or present in the
`
`marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`24.
`
`I am informed by Counsel and understand that a patent claim
`
`composed of several limitations is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating
`
`that each of its limitations was independently known in the prior art. I am informed
`
`by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that identifying a reason those
`
`elements would be combined can be important because inventions in many
`
`instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries
`
`almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known.
`
`I am informed by Counsel and understand that it is improper to use hindsight in an
`
`obviousness analysis, and that a patent's claims should not be used as a “roadmap.”
`
`25.
`
`I am informed by Counsel and understand that an obviousness inquiry
`
`requires consideration of the following factors: (1) the scope and content of the
`
`prior art; (2) the differences between the claims and the prior art; (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) any objective indicia of non-obviousness,
`
`such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved need, failure of others,
`
`industry recognition, copying, and unexpected results. I understand that the
`
`foregoing factors are sometimes referred to as the “Graham factors.”
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that an obviousness
`
`evaluation can be based on a combination of multiple prior art references. I
`
`understand that the prior art references themselves may provide a suggestion,
`
`motivation, or reason to combine, but that the nexus linking two or more prior art
`
`references is sometimes simple common sense. I have been informed by Counsel
`
`and understand that obviousness analysis recognizes that market demand, rather
`
`than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a motivation to combine
`
`references may be supplied by the direction of the marketplace.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that if a technique
`
`has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill at the time of
`
`invention would have recognized that it would improve similar devices in the same
`
`way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
`
`her skill.
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that practical and
`
`common sense considerations should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because
`
`familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. I have been
`
`informed by Counsel and understand that a person of ordinary skill looking to
`
`overcome a problem will often be able to fit together the teachings of multiple
`
`prior art references. I have been informed by Counsel and understand that
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`obviousness analysis therefore takes into account the inferences and creative steps
`
`that a person of ordinary skill would have employed at the time of invention.
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that a proper
`
`obviousness analysis focuses on what was known or obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill at the time of invention, not just the patentee. Accordingly, I
`
`understand that any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
`
`invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the
`
`elements in the manner claimed.
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that a claim can be
`
`obvious in light of a single reference, without the need to combine references, if
`
`the elements of the claim that are not found explicitly or inherently in the reference
`
`can be supplied by the common sense of one of skill in the art.
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that secondary
`
`indicia of non-obviousness may include (1) a long felt but unmet need in the prior
`
`art that was satisfied by the invention of the patent; (2) commercial success of
`
`processes covered by the patent; (3) unexpected results achieved by the invention;
`
`(4) praise of the invention by others skilled in the art; (5) taking of licenses under
`
`the patent by others; (6) deliberate copying of the invention; (7) failure of others to
`
`find a solution to the long felt need; and (8) skepticism by experts. I understand
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`that evidence of secondary indicia of non-obviousness, if available, should be
`
`considered as part of the obviousness analysis.
`
`32.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that there must be a
`
`relationship between any such secondary considerations and the invention, and that
`
`contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a secondary consideration
`
`supporting an obviousness determination.
`
`33.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly
`
`combined where a POSITA having the understanding and knowledge reflected in
`
`the prior art and motivated by the general problem facing the inventor, would have
`
`been led to make the combination of elements recited in the claims. Under this
`
`analysis, the prior art references themselves, or any need or problem known in the
`
`field of endeavor at the time of the invention, can provide a reason for combining
`
`the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed manner.
`
`34.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that in an inter
`
`partes review, “the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of
`
`unpatentability,” including a proposition of obviousness, “by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence.” 35 U.S.C. §316(e).
`
`VI. Overview of the ’226 Patent
`A. Relevant Field and Time
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`35. By the time of the Critical Date of the ’226 Patent, the hyperlinking
`
`paradigm for navigation of computer accessible information had become
`
`pervasive. While originating with the use of hypertext links to provide rapid
`
`access to linked textual information on the world wide web, the methodology had
`
`been rapidly applied to other forms of media, including video. For example, there
`
`were numerous approaches for facilitating a user's ability to navigate amongst
`
`played video content. Various research had already taught navigable video
`
`information streams which allowed a user to move freely from a first video to
`
`another. The creation and means for presentation to the user of alternative content
`
`accessible while viewing was already well understood.
`
`B. Description of the ’226 Patent
`36. The ’226 Patent relates to storing and playing media content so a user can
`
`interactively choose to expand or contract content that is displayed. See EX1001,
`
`1:5-8, 7:15-19. The ’226 Patent says that when a user chooses to select a content
`
`expansion, additional content can be provided for display after receiving the
`
`content selection. Id., 1:42-32.
`
`37. One embodiment in the ’226 patent plays media segments with each
`
`of the continuous play media segments having a first terminus, a second terminus,
`
`a temporal flow from beginning to end, and at least one segment that is associated
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`with one or more links to other segments. See id., 1:21-27. Figure 3A of the ’226
`
`Patent shows an example of a basic temporal flow with content expansion:
`
`EX1001, Figure 3A
`
`
`
`38.
`
`If content expansion is not selected by the user, continuous media
`
`segments 100, 102, and 104 play in order, as indicated by arrow 106. Id., 12:16-
`
`21. If content expansion is selected, an alternate flow is followed to skip segment
`
`102, as indicated by the arrow composed of 108, 110, and 112. Id., 12:21-24. An
`
`example of content expansion is illustrated in Figure 3B, with “102” being the
`
`expansion segment:
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`EX1001, Figure 3B
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`39. Segment link 116 can link segment 100 to expansion segment 102 to
`
`allow for expansion from the segment 100 to the expansion segment 102, and once
`
`the expansion content is complete, a user can be returned to segment 104 using
`
`segment link 118. Id.
`
`C. Challenged Claims of the ’226 Patent
`40. The claims of the ’226 Patent that are being challenged in this IPR
`
`proceeding (“the Challenged Claims”) are claims 1-12. The discussions below are
`
`in reference to the Challenged Claims of the ’226 Patent.
`
`41. The claims of the ’226 Patent are directed to a system and a method
`
`for performing content expansion between a “primary content continuous play
`
`media stream” and a “optional content continuous play media stream” based on a
`
`user’s selection that is made at an “expansion decision point.” See, e.g., EX1001,
`
`claims 1 and 7. If the user does not select content expansion at the expansion
`
`decision point, then a “continuity link” is provided from a “first portion” of the
`
`media to a “continuing portion” of the “optional content continuous play media
`
`stream.” Id. If, alternatively, the user selects the content expansion at the
`
`expansion decision point, then an “expansion link” is provided from the “first
`
`portion” of the “primary content continuous play media stream” to an “expansion
`
`portion” of the “optional content continuous play media stream.” Id. A
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`“continuity link” is then provided between the “expansion portion” and the
`
`“continuing portion” of the “primary content continuous play media stream.” Id.
`
`Accordingly, the method allows for media to be expanded to include optional
`
`media when selected by the user.
`
`42. With the assistance of Counsel, I prepared figure 1 below to
`
`conceptually represent the content expansion technique of the ’226 Patent. The
`
`two alternative pathways of the content expansion are shown below:
`
`Figure 1
`43. As shown in the figure above, path A represents the multimedia
`
`content when it is being played in a normal fashion from start to finish (aka: when
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`a user does not elect any optional content). Path B represents displaying optional
`
`content in response to the user selecting the optional content.
`
`D. Claim Terms
`44. Counsel has informed me that claim terms of the ’226 Patent have
`
`been previously construed in a prior litigation involving the ’158 Patent. I
`
`understand that the claim terms are interpreted under BRI to be as broad, if not
`
`broader, than the district court constructions.
`
`a. “primary content continuous play media stream”
`45. Under BRI, I believe this term should be construed as “minimally
`
`containing a stream of image or text content forming a continuity when presented
`
`to an observer/user,” as defined in the ’226 Patent’s specification. EX1001, 1:26-
`
`29. This feature is further described as being “segmented” into multiple segments
`
`that “collectively contains [] stored content.” See id., 7:31-38.
`
`b. “spatiotemporally continuous”
`46. Under BRI, I believe this term should be construed as “playing a
`
`linear sequencing of content with minimal delay in generally the same defined
`
`space,” as defined by the Patent Owner in the ’218 Reexam. EX1012, 520.
`
`c. “expansion cue container”
`47. Under BRI, I believe this term should be construed as a “display
`
`element for a receptacle for holding expansion cues into and from which cues can
`
`be inserted and removed.” This construction is consistent with the plain meaning,
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`in the context of the ’226 Patent, and is supported by intrinsic evidence. For
`
`example, the ’226 Patent’s specification provides an example of a “visual cue
`
`container 150” of “visually highlighted shapes.” EX1001, 13:46-62. This
`
`construction, in my opinion, is also consistent with the construction adopted by the
`
`district court in a prior litigation involving the related ’158 Patent. See EX1015,
`
`19-20. While the district court’s construction did not include “display element,” a
`
`POSITA would have understood that the term “expansion cue container” refers to
`
`a display element because of its recitation in claim 11 in relation to “plurality of
`
`expansion cues,” which are displayed to a user. Even the ’226 Patent’s
`
`specification provides an example of a “expansion cue container” as a “display
`
`element.” EX1001, 14:50-60 (discussing a displayed “handbag” as representing an
`
`“expansion cue container”).
`
`E. Discussion of Lavallee, Gibson, Cohen, Strickland, Freeman, and
`Conrad in relation to the Challenged Claims
`a. Overview of Lavallee
`48. Lavallee generally describes various techniques that allow a user to
`
`select and view additional program information while watching program
`
`information within a linear programming sequence. EX1004, Abstract. Lavallee’s
`
`system presents program information as “scenes” within a linear programming
`
`sequence, during which a user can provide selections to view additional or
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`alternate program information of other linear programming sequences. Id. Once a
`
`selection is made, the system displays a “scene” corresponding to the selection.
`
`49. Lavallee’s FIG. 1 shows scenes displayed in a linear programming
`
`sequence and optional available scenes that can be selected by a user:
`
`
`
`Figure 2
`In my opinion, Lavallee’s technique to provide additional or alternate
`
`50.
`
`program information shown above is comparable to the “content expansion”
`
`technique described in the ’226 Patent.
`
`b. Claim 1
`[1.0] One or more tangible computer readable storage media (wherein said
`computer readable storage media is not a propagated signal(s)) storing
`instructions that when executed by a computer are capable of causing the
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`computer to:
`51. Lavallee describes a computer system that includes storage media
`
`storing instructions that are executed by processors of the computer system. See,
`
`e.g., EX1004, 7:50-53; see 12:34-38. A POSITA would have understood from its
`
`implementation details that Lavallee teaches this limitation. Additionally, the
`
`storage media discussed in Lavallee are tangible and not a propagated signal.
`
`EX1004, 7:50-53, 12:34-38.
`
`[1.1] a. begin fetching a primary content comprising a primary content
`continuous play media stream;
`52. As I’ve discussed in Section VI.D.a, the term “primary content
`
`continuous play media stream” should be construed under BRI as “minimally
`
`containing a stream of image or text content forming a continuity when presented
`
`to an observer/user,” as defined in the ’226 Patent’s specification. EX1001, 1:26-
`
`29.
`
`53. Lavallee describes a similar technique that provides program
`
`information linearly to a user. EX1004, 2:45-47. The program information
`
`described in Lavallee, which is divided into multiple scenes, is analogous “a
`
`primary content continuous play media stream.” An annotated version of
`
`Lavallee’s FIG. 1 (reproduced below) shows how the linear sequence of “scenes”
`
`of the program information represents the “primary content continuous play media
`
`stream”:
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`
`
`Figure 3
`[1.2] b. generate a signal to display a first portion of the primary content
`continuous media stream comprising a first stored audio and/or visual content
`of the primary content continuous play media stream,
`54. Lavallee’s describes that “scenes” are provided to users linearly in the
`
`same manner as conventional television. EX1004, 4:39-41. Lavallee’s FIG. 5
`
`shows “conveyance schemes 508,” which can use various transmission schemes to
`
`provide the program information, such as “internet…cable television, radio, or
`
`microwave frequency broadcast.” Id., 11:36-45. These conveyance schemes are
`
`used by Lavallee’s system to provide programming information to a “viewing
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`device 504,” which Lavallee describes can be a conventional television set or a
`
`conventional computer device that allows a user to receive content. Id.
`
`55.
`
`In a practical sense, a POSITA would have recognized that the
`
`concept of “generating a signal” in a programming environment is nothing more
`
`than providing an indication that something should occur. For example, the setting
`
`of specific memory locations and a particular flag would cause the program
`
`responsible for controlling the display to play a specific “scene.” As such, in my
`
`opinion, a POSITA would have understood from Lavallee’s descriptions that it
`
`teaches “generat[ing] a signal to display” programming information for a “scene.”
`
`see EX1004, FIG. 5.
`
`56.
`
`In my opinion, an annotated version of Lavallee’s FIG. 1 (reproduced
`
`below) shows “scene 2” as a “portion” within a linear programming sequence:
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`
`
`Figure 4
`In the example above, “scene 2” is just one scene that meets this
`
`57.
`
`limitation for “first portion.” However, in my opinion, this limitation can also be
`
`met by other scenes described in Lavallee, or even combinations of multiple
`
`scenes, such as the combination of “scene 2” and “scene 3” together meeting the
`
`“first portion” feature.
`
`58. Counsel has informed me that Patent Owner has previously argued
`
`that interchanging the use of the terms “portion” and “segment” in claims of a
`
`related patent “is not broadening” and that limitation “segment of stored content”
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,267,226
`
`is at least as broad as a “portion of a primary stream.” EX1012, 517. I believe
`
`Lavallee teaches this limitation under any reasonable construction of “portion” that
`
`would have been understood by a POSITA, including the definition proposed by
`
`the Patent Owner.
`
`59.
`
`In my opinion, the term “portion” should be interpreted as broadly as
`
`the term “segment” because a POSITA would have understood from their use by
`
`the Patent Owner that they refer to the same feature of the system described within
`
`each patent. Furthermore, I don't see any difference between the meaning of these
`
`terms as applied to the term “scene” as used in Lavallee. As such, I believe that a
`
`POSITA would have believed that Lavallee’s “scene” is applicable to both
`
`“segment” or “portion” in the same manner.
`
`[1.3] wherein an interruption terminus of the first