`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,521,466
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00075
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Mandatory Notices........................................................................................... 1
`
`Grounds for Standing ....................................................................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested ........................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The ’466 Patent ..................................................................................... 2
`
`Prosecution of the ’466 Patent .............................................................. 4
`
`Patents and Printed Publications Relied On .......................................... 9
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenge.........................................................11
`
`Claim Construction..............................................................................11
`
`IV. How Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable ..................................................12
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1-4, 6, 7-11, and 13-17 of the ’466 Patent are Obvious in View
`of Sparrell and Harrell .........................................................................12
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................18
`
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................23
`
`iii. Claim 3 ......................................................................................23
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................24
`
`Claims 6 and 7 ...........................................................................25
`
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................25
`
`vii. Claim 9 ......................................................................................27
`
`viii. Claim 10 ....................................................................................28
`
`ix.
`
`x.
`
`xi.
`
`Claim 11 ....................................................................................29
`
`Claim 13 ....................................................................................29
`
`Claim 14 ....................................................................................30
`
`i
`
`

`

`xii. Claim 15 ....................................................................................30
`
`xiii. Claim 16 ....................................................................................33
`
`xiv. Claim 17 ....................................................................................34
`
`xv. Obviousness in view of Sparrell and Harrell ............................34
`
`xvi. Claim Charts .............................................................................38
`
`B.
`
`Claims 5 and 12 of the ’466 Patent are Obvious in View of Sparrell,
`Harrell, and Rautila .............................................................................67
`
`i. Obviousness in View of Sparrell, Harrell, and Rautila ....................68
`
`ii.
`
`Claim Charts .............................................................................69
`
`V.
`
`The Grounds of Unpatentability Presented in this Petition and the Grounds
`of Unpatentability Presented in IPR2018-00072are not Redundant, and the
`PTAB Should Institute Inter Partes Review on the Grounds Presented in this
`Petition and on the Grounds Presented in IPR2018-00072 ...........................71
`
`VI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................73
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`I. Mandatory Notices
`Real-Party-in-Interest:
`
`
`
`Sony Corporation; Sony Corporation of America; Sony Electronics Inc.;
`
`Sony Interactive Entertainment, Inc.; Sony Mobile Communications (USA), Inc.;
`
`Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC; Sony Visual Products Inc.; Sony Video &
`
`Sound Products Inc.; and Sony Interactive Entertainment America LLC.
`
`Related Matters:
`
`
`
`The following judicial matter may affect, or be affected by, a decision in this
`
`inter partes review: ARRIS Enters. LLC v. Sony Corp. et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-
`
`02669-NC (N.D. Cal., filed May 9, 2017).
`
`
`
`The following administrative matters may affect, or be affected by, a
`
`decision in this inter partes review: In re Certain Consumer Electronic Devices,
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1060; and IPR2018-00072.
`
`Lead Counsel:
`
`
`
`Clifford A. Ulrich (Reg. No. 42,194)
`
`Backup Counsel:
`
`
`
`James V. Mahon (Reg. No. 41,966)
`
`Service:
`
`Petitioner agrees to electronic service at the following email addresses:
`
`
`
`culrich@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`jamesmahon@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Service may be made at the following address:
`
`Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`Telephone: 212-425-7200
`Facsimile: 212-425-5288
`
`II. Grounds for Standing
`
`Petitioner certifies that U.S. Patent No. 9,521,466 (“’466 patent,” Ex.-1001)
`
`is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the
`
`grounds identified in this petition.
`
`III.
`
`
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-17 of the ’466 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) and requests cancelation of claims 1-17.
`
`A. The ’466 Patent
`The ’466 patent issued on December 13, 2016, from Application No.
`
`
`
`14/507,329 (“’329 application,” Ex.-1002), filed October 6, 2014. The ’466 patent
`
`claims the benefit of a number of prior applications and provisional applications,
`
`the earliest of which was filed on August 10, 2004.1
`
`
`1 Nothing in this Petition should be considered to be a conclusion by Petitioner that
`
`any claim of the ’466 patent is entitled to a filing date earlier than the October 6,
`
`2014 filing date of the ’329 application.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`The ’466 patent describes communication systems and methods for
`
`providing and receiving “programs” that, generally speaking, are media streams.
`
`Ex.-1001, 2:17, 5:14, Fig. 3. Declaration of Kevin Jeffay (Ex.-1003), ¶13.
`
`
`
`The ’466 patent describes a user device that includes a transceiver unit
`
`connected to a controller that is adapted to: (i) receive a “program multiplex;” (ii)
`
`receive an indication that at least one program is to be removed from the multiplex;
`
`and (iii) selectively transmit a program removal response. Ex.-1001, 1:66-2:4. Also
`
`disclosed is a device to provide a program multiplex. The device includes, e.g., a
`
`management unit adapted to consider a removal of at least one program from the
`
`multiplex in response to program viewing parameters, and determine the removal
`
`in response to at least one received user program removal response. Ex.-1001, 2:5-
`
`12. The ’466 patent further describes a corresponding method for receiving
`
`programs that includes (i) receiving a “program multiplex,” and a program removal
`
`indication; and (ii) selectively transmitting a program removal response. Ex.-1001,
`
`2:13-16. Also disclosed is a method for providing programs, which includes (i)
`
`providing a program multiplex to multiple user devices; (ii) considering removal of
`
`at least one program from the multiplex in response to program viewing
`
`parameters; (iii) allowing at least one user to respond to a possible removal of the
`
`at least one program; and (iv) determining whether to remove the at least one
`
`3
`
`

`

`program in response to received user removal responses. Ex.-1001, 2:17-24. Ex.-
`
`1003, ¶14.
`
`
`
`The claims of the ’466 patent are directed to methods and apparatuses for
`
`conserving “resources” associated with a packet television service comprising,
`
`determining if a resource conserving process should be activated and initiating an
`
`action to conserve resources comprising sending instructions to the content
`
`provider to halt the delivery of a video portion of the television content. Ex.-1001,
`
`11:30-55, 12:39-65. Ex.-1003, ¶15.
`
`Prosecution of the ’466 Patent
`
`B.
`The ’329 application was filed with a “Preliminary Amendment” (Ex.-1004),
`
`which states that “the claims for this continuation have been copied from United
`
`States Patent No. 8,464,299 [“Meier-’299”].”2 As filed, the ’329 application
`
`contained eighteen claims, including independent claims 1 and 16, which are
`
`reproduced below:
`
`1. A method for conserving resources associated with packet
`
`television services comprising:
`
`receiving television content from a content provider over a
`packet network;
`
`
`
`2 Petitioner is challenging claims 1-17 of the ’466 patent in view of Meier-’299 in
`
`IPR2018-00072.
`
`4
`
`

`

`providing the television content to a television monitor for
`
`display to a viewer;
`
`determining if a resource conserving process should be
`activated, wherein the resource conserving process determines if an
`action
`to conserve resources associated with
`transporting
`the
`television content over the packet network should be performed;
`
`if the resource conserving process should be activated:
`
`determining whether the viewer is watching the
`television monitor; and
`resources
`to conserve
`
`initiating
`the action
`associated with transporting the television content over
`the packet network upon determining that the viewer is
`not watching the television monitor;
`if the resource conserving process should not be activated:
`
`continue providing the television content.
`
`
`
`
`16. An apparatus for conserving resources associated with
`
`packet television services comprising:
`
`a first interface adapted to receive television content from a
`content provider over a packet network;
`
`a second interface adapted to provide the television content to a
`television monitor for display to a viewer; and
`
`a control system associated with the first and second interfaces
`and adapted to:
`
`determine if a resource conserving process should be activated,
`wherein the resource conserving process determines if an action to
`
`5
`
`

`

`conserve resources associated with transporting the television content
`over the packet network should be performed;
`
`if the resource conserving process should be activated:
`
`determine whether the viewer is watching the
`television monitor; and
`
`initiate the action to conserve resources associated
`with transporting the television content over the packet
`network upon determining that the viewer is not
`watching the television monitor;
`if the resource conserving process should not be activated:
`
`allow for continued providing of the television
`content.
`In an Office Action dated April 5, 2016, the Examiner rejected application
`
`
`
`claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 16-18 as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,259,486 (“Mahvi”),
`
`rejected application claims 5, 8-10, and 12-15 as obvious in view of the
`
`combination of Mahvi and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0229226,
`
`and stated that application claim 11 included allowable subject matter. Application
`
`claim 11, as filed, is reproduced below:
`
`11. The method of claim 1 wherein initiating the action to
`
`conserve resources comprises sending instructions to the content
`provider to halt delivery of a video portion of the television content,
`wherein the television content delivered after sending the instructions
`does not comprise the video portion.
`
`6
`
`

`

`In response, the Applicant filed an “Amendment in Reply to Non-Final
`
`Office Action of April 5, 2016” Ex.-1005), in which application claim 11 was
`
`canceled and in which application claims 1 and 16 were amended “to include the
`
`features of objected to claim 11” as follows:
`
`1. A method for conserving resources associated with packet
`
`television services comprising:
`
`receiving television content from a content provider over a
`packet network;
`
`providing the television content to a television monitor for
`display to a viewer;
`
`determining if a resource conserving process should be
`activated, wherein the resource conserving process determines if an
`action
`to conserve resources associated with
`transporting
`the
`television content over the packet network should be performed;
`
`if the resource conserving process should be activated:
`
`determining whether the viewer is watching the
`television monitor; and
`resources
`to conserve
`
`initiating
`the action
`associated with transporting the television content over
`the packet network upon determining that the viewer is
`not watching the television monitor, wherein initiating
`the action to conserve resources comprises sending
`instructions to the content provider to halt delivery of a
`video portion of the television content, wherein the
`
`7
`
`

`

`television content delivered after sending the instructions
`does not comprise the video portion;
`if the resource conserving process should not be activated:
`
`continue providing the television content.
`
`
`
`
`16. An apparatus for conserving resources associated with
`
`packet television services comprising:
`
`a first interface adapted to receive television content from a
`content provider over a packet network;
`
`a second interface adapted to provide the television content to a
`television monitor for display to a viewer; and
`
`a control system associated with the first and second interfaces
`and adapted to:
`
`determine if a resource conserving process should be activated,
`wherein the resource conserving process determines if an action to
`conserve resources associated with transporting the television content
`over the packet network should be performed;
`
`if the resource conserving process should be activated:
`
`determine whether the viewer is watching the
`television monitor; and
`
`initiate the action to conserve resources associated
`with transporting the television content over the packet
`network upon determining that the viewer is not
`watching the television monitor, wherein initiating the
`action
`to conserve
`resources comprises
`sending
`instructions to the content provider to halt delivery of a
`video portion of the television content, wherein the
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`television content delivered after sending the instructions
`does not comprise the video portion;
`if the resource conserving process should not be activated:
`
`allow for continued providing of the television
`content.
`Thereafter, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance (Ex.-1006), stating:
`
`Claim 1 is allowed because the closest prior art, Mahvi et al.
`
`(U.S. Patent # 6259486), and Relan et al. (U.S. PG-Publication #
`2005/0229226), either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate
`or render obvious a method comprising:
`
`“wherein initiating the action to conserve resources comprises
`sending instructions to the content provider to halt delivery of a video
`portion of the television content, wherein the television content
`delivered after sending the instructions does not comprise the video
`portion," in combination with all other limitations in the claim as
`claimed and defined by applicants.
`
`
`The ’466 patent issued, with claim 1 corresponding to claim 1 of the ’326
`
`application and claim 15 corresponding to claim 16 of the ’326 application.
`
`Patents and Printed Publications Relied On
`
`C.
`PCT Publication No. WO03/025726 (“Sparrell,” Ex.-1007) published March
`
`
`
`27, 2003, more than one year before the earliest filing date claimed on the face of
`
`the ’466 patent, and therefore constitutes prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b) to any claim of the ’466 patent that may be entitled to a filing date earlier
`
`9
`
`

`

`than the October 6, 2014 filing date of the ’329 application and constitutes prior art
`
`under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) to any claim of the ’466 patent that is not entitled
`
`to a filing date earlier than the October 6, 2014 filing date of the ’329 application.3
`
`
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2003/0067872 (“Harrell,” Ex.-1008), published April
`
`10, 2003, more than one year before the earliest filing date claimed on the face of
`
`the ’466 patent, constitutes prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) to any
`
`claim of the ’466 patent that may be entitled to a filing date earlier than the
`
`October 6, 2014 filing date of the ’329 application and constitutes prior art under
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) to any claim of the ’466 patent that is not entitled to a
`
`filing date earlier than the October 6, 2014 filing date of the ’329 application.
`
`
`
`PCT Publication No. WO02/05557 (“Rautila,” Ex.-1009), published January
`
`17, 2002, constitutes prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) to any claim of
`
`the ’466 patent that may be entitled to a filing date earlier than the October 6, 2014
`
`
`
`3 As set forth in the “Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,521,466,” IPR2018-00072, filed by Petitioner, no claim of the ’466 patent is
`
`entitled to a filing date earlier than the October 6, 2014 filing date of the ’329
`
`application, at least because none of the prior applications whose filing date is
`
`claimed provides an adequate written description of the subject matter claimed in
`
`the ’466 patent.
`
`10
`
`

`

`filing date of the ’329 application and constitutes prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(a)(1) to any claim of the ’466 patent that is not entitled to a filing date earlier
`
`than the October 6, 2014 filing date of the ’329 application.
`
`D.
`1.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenge
`
`Claims 1-4, 6, 7-11, and 13-17 are obvious in view of Sparrell and
`
`Harrell under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 5 and 12 are obvious in view of Sparrell, Harrell, and Rautila
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`E. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given their
`
`
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`standard, and absent any special definitions, claim terms generally are given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, in view of the specification. The specification of the ’466 patent does not
`
`present any special definition for any claim term, and the prosecution history does
`
`not include any claim construction arguments, such that all claim terms of the ’466
`
`patent should be given their ordinary and customary meaning, in accordance with
`
`their broadest reasonable construction.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IV. How Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable
`A. Claims 1-4, 6, 7-11, and 13-17 of the ’466 Patent are Obvious in
`View of Sparrell and Harrell
`
`
`
`Sparrell describes methods and systems for allocating and managing
`
`resources of digital entertainment devices. Sparrell, 2:26-3:5. The network
`
`resources include disk bandwidth, disk capacity, network bandwidth, etc. Sparrell,
`
`12:3-5, 12:17-19. A plurality of devices, e.g., televisions, video recording devices,
`
`etc., are provided “in a network having sufficient bandwidth to distribute media
`
`content (e.g., movies, audio/stereo).” Sparrell, 2:26-3:5. A centralized resource
`
`manager is provided, in which the “centralized resource manager … assign[s]
`
`network resources in the most efficient manner.” Sparrell, 4:13-17. According to
`
`Sparrell, the “centralized resource manager identifies, assigns, and reserves
`
`available resources in response to user requests for processing media content so
`
`that the functionality of the distributed network is centralized,” and “[m]anaged
`
`resources can include … network bandwidth, … TV tuners, MPEG encoder and
`
`decoders.” Sparrell, 4:19-25. Ex.-1003, ¶16.
`
`
`
`Regarding television content, “[w]hen a request is received from a user …
`
`for viewing … television programming material, … the centralized resource
`
`manager implements a reservation protocol … to define a pipeline or session, using
`
`the available network resources embodied in the media server and client devices, to
`
`fulfill the user’s request.” Sparrell, 5:3-9. If devices are removed from the network,
`
`12
`
`

`

`the centralized resource manager can reallocate network resources. In this regard,
`
`the centralized resource manager can include a sensing system for determining
`
`when devices are added or removed from the network. Sparrell, 6:8-10. Such a
`
`sensing system “may include a current, infrared (IR), or electro-magnetic field
`
`(EMF) sensing systems for detecting when video devices are turned off so that the
`
`network resources associated with that video device may be reallocated.” Sparrell,
`
`6:10-12. Ex.-1003, ¶17.
`
`
`
`For example, a power switching system may be included in the centralized
`
`resource manager that “allow[s] the centralized resource manager to determine the
`
`powering on and off of the devices such that network resources associated with
`
`these devices may be automatically reallocated when the devices are determined to
`
`be in an OFF state.” Sparrell, 6:19-23. For example, an electrical current sensing
`
`system 308 may be provided in a set-top box (STB) 300 that is connected to a
`
`television. Sparrell, 22:29-23:1. The current sensing system 308 can detect the ON
`
`and OFF states of the television to which the STB 300 is connected. Sparrell,
`
`22:29-23:1. Ex.-1003, ¶18.
`
`
`
`Similarly, an IR sensing system can “detect and process signals from a
`
`typical IR remote control device, and thereby determine the on/off state of the
`
`corresponding video device, so that resources associated with that device can be
`
`automatically reallocated.” Sparrell, 6:13-16. For example, “if a viewer of one
`
`13
`
`

`

`television is requesting a tuner, and if all tuners are in use, and if more than one
`
`tuner is in use in a media pipeline to a television set,” according to Sparrell, “the
`
`ideal solution is to reallocate a tuner 404 that is used by a television 104 that is
`
`actually turned off.” Sparrell, 24:28-25:1. Sparrell’s centralized resource manager
`
`can “guess which television is most likely turned off and issue an alert to that
`
`screen.” Sparrell, 25:1-3. Sparrell’s centralized resource manager issues an alert as
`
`a graphical pop-up window 46, shown in Figure 11, reproduced below, which
`
`signals: “The tuner you are using is being requested by another viewer. Press enter
`
`to reject this request.” Sparrell, 25:4-6. Ex.-1003, ¶19.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`The alert above is issued allowing a user a certain amount of time, e.g., one
`
`minute, to reject the request; if there is no response within the allotted time, “the
`
`centralized resource manager 12 will reallocate that tuner 104.” Sparrell, 25:4-9.
`
`Ex.-1003, ¶20.
`
`
`
`Sparrell discloses that media pipelines between the media server 108 and
`
`client devices 112, 114, which are connected to respective televisions 104, 106, are
`
`established when requested and “torn down” after particular requests have been
`
`fulfilled. For example, when a user wants to watch a television program on a
`
`television that is located in the kitchen, a media pipeline is established with that
`
`television. Sparrell, 14:27-30. If a user wants to watch a television program on
`
`another television, e.g., a television located in the living room, when there are no
`
`more tuners available in the network, the user can request “to ‘steal’ a tuner from
`
`one of the other media pipelines, i.e., utilizing a network resource (tuner) that had
`
`previously been reserved by the centralized resource manager 12.” Sparrell, 15:29-
`
`16:2. Thus, for example, the centralized resource manager 12 can “tear down” the
`
`media pipeline to a television that has been turned off and re-allocate that network
`
`resource to another media request. Sparrell, 16:10-13. Ex.-1003, ¶21.
`
`
`
`While Sparrell does not specifically disclose that the “tear down” of a media
`
`pipeline can include halting delivery of a video portion of the television program, it
`
`was well known before the filing date of the ’329 application, and before the
`
`15
`
`

`

`earliest filing date claimed on the face of the ’466 patent, e.g., as evidenced by
`
`Sparrell, which published on April 10, 2003, to halt delivery of the video portion of
`
`streaming video, while continuing to deliver the audio portion. For example,
`
`Harrell describes methods and apparatuses for client-side detection of network
`
`congestion in packet networks. Harrell, Abstract, ¶[0003]. According to Harrell,
`
`there are difficulties associated with “delivering streaming media over broadband
`
`packet networks.” Harrell, ¶[0005]. For example, network congestion can “result[]
`
`in the loss or corruption of packets,” can “interfere[] with the quality level of real-
`
`time data,” and can “cause interruptions or delays in streaming media, resulting in
`
`a quality of service that is inferior to broadcast standards.” Harrell, ¶[0006].
`
`Against this background, Harrell describes methods and apparatuses “for ensuring
`
`the delivery of quality streaming media to clients over packet networks” and for
`
`“avoiding error[s] in a media stream across a congested network” and “addresses
`
`the problem of managing network congestion when streaming media data
`
`consumes a significant share of network bandwidth.” Harrell, ¶[0014]. Ex.-1003,
`
`¶22.
`
`
`
`Harrell describes that a client receives a media stream into a media buffer,
`
`and that the media buffer can detect a plurality of levels of network congestion by
`
`monitoring the buffer level. Harrell, ¶[0016]. The client can request a plurality of
`
`service adjustments from the media server in response to the congestion level in
`
`16
`
`

`

`order to avoid errors in playback of the media stream. Harrell, ¶[0016]. Harrell
`
`describes a number of different adjustments that can be requested by the client.
`
`Harrell, ¶[0016]. Relevant for the invalidity analysis of the ’466 patent is the
`
`request, sent by the client to the media server, for the service adjustment,
`
`“maintaining audio while dropping video,” which corresponds to the claim
`
`limitations, “wherein initiating the action to conserve resources comprises sending
`
`instructions to the content provider to halt delivery of a video portion of the
`
`television content” and “wherein the television content delivered after sending the
`
`instructions does not comprise the video portion.” Ex.-1003, ¶23.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art4 at the time the alleged inventions claimed in the ’466 patent were made to
`
`utilize Harrell’s service adjustments, including “maintaining audio while dropping
`
`video” in Sparrell’s resource manager, to, for example, achieve “gracefully
`
`decreased quality” of the media stream (Harrell, ¶[0016]). Ex.-1003, ¶24.
`
`
`
`4 The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art cited on the face
`
`of the ’466 patent as well as by the prior art cited herein.
`
`17
`
`

`

`i.
`
`Claim 1
`A method for conserving resources associated with
`a.
`packet television services
`
`
`
`Sparrell and Harrell describe methods for conserving resources associated
`
`with packet television services. Sparrell, for example, describes that a “centralized
`
`resource manager … for distributed networks manages resources available on the
`
`network, such as network bandwidth, CPU allocation, TV tuners …, MPEG
`
`encoders …, disk bandwidth, and input output devices.” Sparrell, Abstract. Sparrell
`
`specifically describes “televisions and video recording devices” as devices
`
`connected to the network and describes “movies” among the media content that is
`
`distributed on the network. Sparrell, 2:26-3:3. Similarly, Harrell describes
`
`“delivery of quality streaming media to clients over packet networks,” Harrell,
`
`¶[0014]. The packet network distributes “broadcast quality streaming media from a
`
`server to at least one client,” Harrell, ¶[0015], and the client takes “the form of … a
`
`set top box attached to a television,” Harrell, ¶[0088]. Ex.-1003, ¶25.
`
`receiving television content from a content provider
`b.
`over a packet network
`
`
`
`Sparrell and Harrell describe receiving television content from a content
`
`provider over a packet network. For example, Sparrell describes that “linking
`
`multiple digital entertainment devices in a home network infrastructure has
`
`become widely accepted” and that “televisions and video recording devices,” for
`
`example, are interconnected “in a network having sufficient bandwidth to
`18
`
`

`

`distribute media content,” including, for example, movies, “throughout a home.”
`
`Sparrell, 2:26-3:3. According to Sparrell, a media server 108 accepts “CATV (both
`
`analog and digital),” Sparrell, 17:16-18, and includes a “broadband interface for
`
`receiving digital content such as TCP/IP or UDP/IP packets,” Sparrell, 18:12-13.
`
`Harrell, describes “providing uninterrupted streaming media over IP [Internet
`
`Protocol] networks,” Harrell, ¶[0029], which Harrell recognizes to be, as is well-
`
`known, “a packet network,” Harrell, ¶[0007]. Ex.-1003, ¶26.
`
`providing the television content to a television
`c.
`monitor for display to a viewer
`
`
`
`Sparrell and Harrell describe providing the television content to a television
`
`monitor for display to a viewer. For example, Sparrell describes network resources
`
`that include “distributing audio and/or video content for real-time presentation to a
`
`user (e.g., … viewing and listening via a television set).” Sparrell, 8:17-23. Harrell
`
`describes that the client receptacle may “take the form of … a set top box attached
`
`to a television.” Harrell, ¶[0088]. Ex.-1003, ¶27.
`
`determining if a resource conserving process should
`d.
`be activated, wherein the resource conserving process
`determines if an action to conserve resources associated
`with transporting the television content over the packet
`network should be performed
`
`
`
`Sparrell describes determining if a resource conserving process should be
`
`activated, wherein the resource conserving process determines if an action to
`
`conserve resources associated with transporting the television content over the
`
`19
`
`

`

`packet network should be performed. For example, Sparrell describes that the
`
`centralized resource manager makes an “educated guess as to whether a particular
`
`television or other resource is in use.” Sparrell, 24:24-27. If the centralized
`
`resource manager determines “that the television 104 is in the OFF state,” an alert
`
`will “be issued … to the screen of the television 104, a response waited for (for a
`
`predetermined period of time) …, followed by reallocation … of the resources 404
`
`associated with the television 104 if no response is received.” Sparrell, 25:27-26:2.
`
`Ex.-1003, ¶28
`
`if the resource conserving process should be
`e.
`activated: determining whether the viewer is watching the
`television monitor
`
`
`
`Sparrell describes, if the resource conserving process should be activated,
`
`determining whether the viewer is watching the television monitor. For example,
`
`Sparrell describes that “[t]he centralized resource manager 12 can make a
`
`considered determination as to the likelihood a screen of a television 103 is being
`
`watched by monitoring the IR channel 402 … of the associated client device.”
`
`Sparrell, 25:16-20. According to Sparrell, “[i]f there has been recent IR activity in
`
`the vicinity of the TV 104, there is a high probability that a user is watching and
`
`interacting with the TV 104,” whereas “if there has been no IR activity for several
`
`hours, there is a high probability that nobody is watching the television 104.”
`
`Sparrell, 25:20-25. Ex.-1003, ¶29.
`
`20
`
`

`

`initiating the action to conserve resources associated
`f.
`with transporting the television content over the packet
`network upon determining that the viewer is not watching
`the television monitor
`
`
`
`Sparrell describes initiating the action to conserve resources associated with
`
`transporting the television content over the packet network upon determining that
`
`the viewer is not watching the television monitor. For example, Sparrell describes
`
`that “[o]nly when a determination has been made … that the television 104 is in
`
`the OFF state will an alert be issued … to the screen of the television 104, a
`
`response waited for (for a predetermined period of time) …, followed by
`
`reallocation … of the resources 404 associated with the television 104 if no
`