`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SONOS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`IMPLICIT, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case: To Be Assigned
`
`Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,942,252
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §311 et seq. and 37 CFR §42.1 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ............................................................................................. v
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 CFR §42.8 ....................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`STANDING TO FILE PETITION UNDER 37 CFR §§42.101 – 103 ........... 3
`
`IV. PETITION REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 CFR §42.104 ............................. 4
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF ‘252 PATENT ..................................................................... 7
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`“device time” ....................................................................................... 18
`
`“rendering time” .................................................................................. 18
`
`Sending/receiving “a plurality of master rendering times” ................. 19
`
`“smooth a rendering time differential . . .” / “determining a
`smoothed rendering time differential . . .” ........................................ 20
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGES................................................................. 24
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF JANEVSKI ........................................................................ 26
`
`IX. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF CHALLENGE#1 ........................................... 35
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................... 36
`
`Dependent Claims 2-3 & 8 .................................................................. 47
`
`Independent Claim 11 ......................................................................... 50
`
`D. Dependent Claim 17 ............................................................................ 56
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`X. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF CHALLENGES#2-4 ...................................... 57
`
`XI. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF CHALLENGE#5 ........................................... 64
`
`XII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Ex Parte Peter Hartmann, Ching Tat Lai, & Leon R. Mitoulas,
`APPEAL 2012-007518, 2015 WL 581245 (Feb. 10, 2015) .......................... 47
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ....................................................................... 5
`
`Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., Inc., 7,420,151 B2,
`2017 WL 950769 (Mar. 8, 2017) ................................................................... 47
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007)....................................................................................... 42
`
`Odom v. Microsoft Corp.,
`429 F. App'x 967 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 42
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................... 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................... 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(a) ................................................................................................. 3
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(c) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ..................................................................................... 5, 18
`
`37 CFR § 42.1 ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 CFR § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 CFR § 42.101 ........................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 CFR § 42.102(a) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 CFR § 42.104(a) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 CFR § 42.104(b)(1) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`37 CFR § 42.104(b)(2) ............................................................................................... 5
`
`37 CFR § 42.15(a)(1) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`37 CFR § 42.15(a)(2) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`37 CFR § 42.22 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 CFR § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 CFR § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 CFR § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 CFR § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT
`Ex.1001
`
`Ex.1002
`
`Ex.1003
`
`Ex.1004
`
`Ex.1005
`
`Ex.1006
`Ex.1007
`Ex.1008
`Ex.1009
`
`Ex.1010
`
`Ex.1011
`
`Ex.1012
`
`Ex.1013
`Ex.1014
`Ex.1015
`Ex.1016
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`DESCRIPTION
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,252 to Balassanian et al.
`Patent Owner’s Original Complaint in Implicit, LLC v. Sonos,
`Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00259-LPS (D. Del.) (D.I. 1, dated
`03/10/2017)
`Patent Owner’s First Amended Complaint in Implicit, LLC v.
`Sonos, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00259-LPS (D. Del.) (D.I. 34,
`dated 10/06/2017)
`Petitioner’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims
`to Patent Owner’s First Amended Complaint in Implicit, LLC v.
`Sonos, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00259-LPS (D. Del.) (D.I. 36,
`dated 11/20/2017)
`Petitioner’s First Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and
`Counterclaims to Patent Owner’s First Amended Complaint in
`Implicit, LLC v. Sonos, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00259-LPS (D.
`Del.) (D.I. 39, dated 1/11/2018)
`Patent Owner’s Initial Claim Charts in Implicit, LLC v. Sonos,
`Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00259-LPS (D. Del.) (01/22/2018)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,338 to Janevski
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/341,574
`Expert Declaration of Roman Chertov
`Publication entitled “Fault-Tolerant Clock Synchronization for
`Distributed Systems with High Message Delay Variation” by
`Marcelo Moraes de Azevedo et al.
`Publication entitled “Network Time Protocol (Version 3)
`Specification, Implementation and Analysis” by David L. Mills
`Publication entitled “Time Synchronization Over Networks
`Using Convex Closures” by Jean-Marc Berthaud
`U.S. Patent No. 6,278,710 to Eidson
`U.S. Patent No. 5,642,171 to Baumgartner
`Publication entitled “Data Smoothing” by J.T. Grissom et al.
`Publication entitled “Smoothing Methods in Statistics” by
`Jeffrey S. Simonoff
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex.1017
`
`Ex.1018
`
`“Modern Dictionary of Electronics,” 7th Edition (1999)
`Printout of “Statistics Glossary v1.1” by Easton & McColl,
`http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/index.html (last
`updated September 1997)
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §311 et seq. and 37 CFR §42.1 et seq., Sonos, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner” or “Sonos”) hereby petitions the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the
`
`“Board”) to institute an Inter Partes Review of Claims 1-3, 8, 11, and 17 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,942,252 (“the ‘252 Patent”; Ex.1001). The ‘252 Patent issued on
`
`January 27, 2015. According to USPTO records, the ‘252 Patent is currently
`
`assigned to Implicit, LLC (“Patent Owner” or “Implicit”).
`
`This petition for Inter Partes Review (the “Petition”) demonstrates a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to claims 1-3, 8, 11,
`
`and 17 of the ‘252 Patent (the “Challenged Claims”). 35 U.S.C. §314(a).
`
`Petitioner asserts that the Challenged Claims are anticipated by and/or obvious
`
`over the asserted prior art.
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §42.22, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`review the asserted prior art and below analysis, institute a trial for Inter Partes
`
`Review of the Challenged Claims, and cancel those claims as unpatentable.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 CFR §42.8
`
`Real Party-In-Interest – 37 CFR §42.8(b)(1): Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§312(a)(2), the real party-in-interest is Sonos, Inc., a corporation organized under
`
`the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business at 614 Chapala
`
`Street, Santa Barbara, California 93101.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Related Matters – 37 CFR §42.8(b)(2): On March 10, 2017, Patent Owner
`
`filed a Complaint against Petitioner in the U.S. District Court for the District of
`
`Delaware that alleged infringement of the ‘252 Patent as well as U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,391,791 (the “Litigation”). Ex.1002. The case was assigned Civil Action No.
`
`17-cv-00259-LPS and is currently pending before Judge Leonard P. Stark. Id.
`
`After Petitioner moved to dismiss Patent Owner’s Complaint under Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
`
`be granted, Patent Owner filed a First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`on October 6, 2017. Ex.1003.
`
`On November 20, 2017, Petitioner filed its original Answer, Affirmative
`
`Defenses, and Counterclaims to Patent Owner’s First Amended Complaint.
`
`Ex.1004. On January 11, 2018, Petitioner then filed a First Amended Answer,
`
`Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims. Ex.1005.
`
`Patent Owner also recently served its Initial Claim Charts in the Litigation,
`
`which demonstrate how Patent Owner is interpreting the Challenged Claims of the
`
`‘252 Patent in order to read such claims onto Petitioner’s networked audio system
`
`(the “Accused Sonos Products”). Ex.1006.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Lead/Back-Up Counsel and Service Info – 37 CFR §42.8(b)(3)-(4):
`
`Lead Counsel
`Rory P. Shea
`Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP
`224 N Desplaines St, Suite 250
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`
`
`Tel: (312) 754-9602
`Fax: (312) 754-9603
`Email: shea@ls3ip.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 60,529
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Cole B. Richter
`Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP
`224 N Desplaines St, Suite 250
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`
`George I. Lee
`Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP
`224 North Desplaines Street, Suite 250
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`
`Michael P. Boyea
`Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP
`224 N Desplaines St, Suite 250
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`
`
`
`Tel: (312) 754-9602
`Fax: (312) 754-9603
`Email: richter@ls3ip.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 65,398
`
`Tel: (312) 754-9602
`Fax: (312) 754-9603
`Email: lee@ls3ip.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 39,269
`
`Tel: (312) 754-9602
`Fax: (312) 754-9603
`Email: boyea@ls3ip.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 70,248
`
`Service Information – 37 CFR §42.8(b)(4): Petitioner consents to
`
`electronic service at the addresses of lead and back-up counsel listed above.
`
`III. STANDING TO FILE PETITION UNDER 37 CFR §§42.101 – 103
`
`Standing – 37 CFR §42.101: Sonos has not filed a civil action challenging
`
`the validity of a claim of the ‘252 Patent. See 37 C.F.R. §42.101(a). In addition,
`
`this Petition has been filed within one year after Sonos was served with a
`
`jurisdictionally-proper complaint alleging infringement of the ‘252 Patent on
`
`March 10, 2017, i.e., the Litigation. See 35 U.S.C. §315(b); 37 C.F.R. §42.101(b);
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex.1002. Petitioner is also not estopped from challenging Claims 1-3, 8, 11, and
`
`17 of the ‘252 Patent on the grounds identified in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.101(c). Thus, the filing of this Petition is proper under 37 CFR §42.101.
`
`Timing – 37 CFR §42.102: The ‘252 Patent was filed before March 16,
`
`2013, was granted on January 27, 2015, and has had no post-grant review initiated.
`
`Accordingly, the timing for this Petition is proper under 37 CFR §42.102(a).
`
`Fees – 37 CFR §42.103: With the filing of this Petition, Sonos is paying
`
`both the $15,500 request fee set forth in 37 CFR §42.15(a)(1), as well as the
`
`$15,000 post-institution fee set forth in 37 CFR §42.15(a)(2). However, Petitioner
`
`authorizes a debit from Deposit Account No. 50-6632 for whatever additional
`
`payment is necessary in filing and/or granting this Petition.
`
`IV. PETITION REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 CFR §42.104
`
`Certification – 37 CFR §42.104(a): Petitioner certifies that the ‘252 Patent
`
`is available for Inter Partes Review and that the Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting an Inter Partes Review of the Challenged Claims on the
`
`grounds identified in the Petition.
`
`Claims Challenged – 37 CFR §42.104(b)(1): Petitioner requests review of
`
`Challenged Claims 1-3, 8, 11, and 17 of the ‘252 Patent.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Specific Statutory Grounds – 37 CFR §42.104(b)(2): For the reasons set
`
`forth in detail below, Petitioner submits that the Challenged Claims of the ‘252
`
`Patent are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of the asserted prior art.
`
`Claim Construction – 37 CFR §42.104(b)(3): In an Inter Partes Review,
`
`claim terms are given their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears.” See 37 CFR §42.100(b). Under
`
`this broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms generally are given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech.,
`
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits that Patent Owner’s own broad interpretation
`
`of the Challenged Claims of the ‘252 Patent in the Litigation should also be
`
`considered when construing the claim terms here, because those positions are
`
`informative of what Patent Owner considers to be the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction” of the claims.
`
`In the “Claim Construction” section below, Petitioner has identified claim
`
`terms that should be construed in order to resolve the challenges herein, along with
`
`proposed constructions that reflect the terms’ “broadest reasonable construction” as
`
`understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) in light of
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`both the specification of the ‘252 Patent and Patent Owner’s own interpretation of
`
`the Challenged Claims in the Litigation.
`
`To be clear, Petitioner is only proposing constructions for terms that are
`
`necessary to resolve the specific challenges herein, and all of Petitioner’s proposed
`
`constructions have been made under the “broadest reasonable construction”
`
`standard rather than the Phillips standard that governs the Litigation. Thus,
`
`Petitioner’s proposed constructions herein shall not be used to limit Petitioner’s
`
`ability to propose additional and/or different claim constructions in the Litigation
`
`or another proceeding. To the contrary, Petitioner expressly reserves the right to
`
`advocate additional and/or different claim interpretations in the Litigation or any
`
`other proceeding in accordance with the claim construction standards applied in
`
`such a proceeding.
`
`Likewise, to the extent that any of Petitioner’s proposed constructions are
`
`based on Patent Owner’s interpretation of the Challenged Claims of the ‘252
`
`Patent in the Litigation, such constructions certainly do not constitute an agreement
`
`with Patent Owner’s interpretation. Rather, Petitioner’s position is simply that it is
`
`appropriate to considered Patent Owner’s interpretation of the Challenged Claims
`
`in the Litigation (which Patent Owner must view as reasonable) when determining
`
`the “broadest reasonable construction” here.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF ‘252 PATENT
`
`The ‘252 Patent was filed on March 25, 2013 as U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`13/850,260 (“the ‘260 Application”). Ex.1001. The priority claim set forth in the
`
`‘252 Patent is as follows:
`
`This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No.
`12/710,146, filed Feb. 22, 2010, which is a continuation of U.S.
`application Ser. No. 11/933,194, filed Oct. 31, 2007, now abandoned,
`which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/322,335, filed
`Dec. 17, 2002, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,391,791, which claims the benefit
`of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/341,574, filed Dec. 17, 2001.
`
`Id. The ‘252 Patent ultimately issued on January 27, 2015 with a total of 17
`
`claims, of which Claims 1 and 17 are independent and the remainder are
`
`dependent. Id.
`
`In general, the ‘252 Patent is directed to synchronizing the rendering of
`
`content at multiple “rendering devices,” examples of which may include “video
`
`rendering device” (e.g., a video display), an “audio rendering device” (e.g., a stereo
`
`system) and a “text rendering device.” Id., Abstract, FIG. 1, 3:64-4:1.
`
`In its “Background,” the ‘252 Patent explains that rendering content on
`
`multiple renderer devices “in a synchronized manner” is made difficult by the fact
`
`that the rendering devices “may have different time domains.” Id., 1:40-42. For
`
`instance, the ‘252 Patent notes that video and audio rendering devices “may have
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`system clocks that operate at slightly different frequencies,” which may result in
`
`the video and audio content of a multimedia presentation “gradually appear[ing] to
`
`the person viewing the presentation to be out of synchronization.” Id., 1:42-46.
`
`In addition, the ‘252 Patent explains that a given rendering device may have
`
`“multiple time domains,” which may make it “even more difficult” to render
`
`content on multiple renderer devices “in a synchronized manner.” Id., 1:46-49.
`
`For example, the ‘252 Patent notes that an audio rendering device may have both
`
`“a system clock” and also “a clock on a digital signal processing (“DSP”) interface
`
`card,” which “may result in the presentation becoming even more quickly out of
`
`synchronization.” Id., 1:49-53.
`
`Thus, the ‘252 Patent’s objective is to provide a method and system that
`
`synchronizes the rendering of content at rendering devices having different time
`
`domains. Id., 1:54-56, 2:17-20. One embodiment of the ‘252 Patent’s disclosed
`
`system is illustrated in FIG. 1:
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 1. As shown in FIG. 1, a source device 101 distributes content of a
`
`presentation to a video rendering device 102, an audio rendering device 103, and a
`
`text rendering device 104 via a communication link 105. Id., FIG. 1, 3:64-4:1.
`
`
`
`In the disclosed system, each rendering device may have both a “device
`
`time” and a “rendering time.” Id., 2:18-20. The ‘252 Patent states that a “device
`
`time is the time indicated by a designated clock (e.g., system clock) of the
`
`rendering device.” Id., 2:20-21. On the other hand, the ‘252 Patent states that
`
`“rendering time is the time represented by the amount of content that has been
`
`rendered by that rendering device.” Id., 2:22-23; see also 7:52-54 (stating that
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`“rendering time continues to reflect the amount of the content that has been
`
`effectively rendered”).
`
`In this respect, the “rendering time of content at a rendering device has a
`
`‘corresponding’ device time, which is the device time at which the rendering time
`
`occurred.” Id., 2:26-28. To illustrate this, the ‘252 Patent provides an example in
`
`which a video rendering device begins rendering at a device time of 30 minutes
`
`and then displays 450 video frames at a rate of 30 frames/second. Id., 2:23-32. In
`
`this example, the video rendering device’s rendering time after it has rendered the
`
`450th frame would be 15 seconds, and the corresponding device time would be 30
`
`minutes and 15 seconds. Id.
`
`“To help ensure synchronization of rendering devices, the synchronization
`
`system designates one of the rendering devices as a master rendering device and
`
`designates all other rendering devices as slave rendering devices.” Id., 2:32-36.
`
`For example, in the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1, the audio rendering device
`
`103 is designated as the “master” device and the video and text rendering devices
`
`102 and 104 are designated as “slave” devices. Id., FIG. 1, 4:19-24.
`
`Once the master and slave roles have been assigned, each slave in the
`
`synchronization system “determines whether it is synchronized with the master
`
`rendering time.” Id., Abstract, 2:41-46. The ‘252 Patent discloses a two-phase
`
`process for making this determination.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`In a first phase of the disclosed process, each slave exchanges “device time
`
`information” with the master in order to determine a differential between the
`
`master and slave devices’ respective devices times (which the ‘252 Patent also
`
`refers to as a “time domain differential”). Id., 3:31-63. The ‘252 Patent’s
`
`preferred process for determining a differential between two devices’ respective
`
`device times is illustrated in FIG. 2:
`
`
`Id., FIG. 2. As shown, this process may generally include the following steps:
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`1. A first device (such as master 103) may send a second device (such as slave
`
`102) an originating message 301 that includes the first device’s current
`
`device time when the originating message 301 is sent, which may be referred
`
`to as “sendtime1” or “ST1” for short;
`
`2. The second device may record its current device time when it receives the
`
`originating message 301, which may be referred to as “receivetime1” or
`
`“RT1” for short;
`
`3. The second device may send the first device a reply message 302 that
`
`includes the second device’s current device time when the reply message
`
`302 is sent, which may be referred to as “sendtime2” or “ST2” for short, as
`
`well as sendtime1 and receivetime1;
`
`4. The first device may record its current device time when it receives the reply
`
`message 302, which may be referred to as “receivetime2” or “RT2” for
`
`short; and
`
`5. The differential (or “Diff”) between the devices’ respective device times
`
`may then be calculated using the following equation:
`
`Diff = ((RT1−ST1)+(ST2−RT2))/2
`
`Id., 4:50-67.
`
`In the ‘252 Patent’s disclosed system, exchanges such as this are carried out
`
`between the master and each slave in order to determine a respective differential
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`between the master’s device time and each slave’s device time. Id., 3:31-63, 5:39-
`
`64. Additionally, the ‘252 Patent discloses that a differential between the
`
`respective device times of a rendering device and the source device could be
`
`determined in a similar manner. Id., 5:39-64.
`
`In addition, the ‘252 Patent discloses that the differential between two
`
`devices’ respective device times “can also be smoothed using various techniques
`
`such as averaging the last several time domain differentials using a decaying
`
`function to limit the impact of the oldest time domain differentials.” Id., 7:16-21.
`
`For instance, the ‘252 Patent discloses that “[i]n one embodiment, the
`
`synchronization system saves the values of the last eight pairs of time domain
`
`differentials (i.e., ST2−RT2 and RT1−ST1) and uses the average of the minimum
`
`value of the set of eight larger differentials and the maximum value of the set of
`
`eight smaller differentials as the time domain differential.” Id., 7:21-26.
`
`Turning to the second phase of the disclosed process, after the rendering
`
`devices in the system begin to render content, the master may periodically send
`
`each slave a “rendering time message” that includes an indication of the master
`
`device’s rendering time. Id., Abstract, 2:38-40, 4:24-32, 7:59-8:3, FIG. 9. In turn,
`
`each slave may use the indication of the master’s rendering time and the
`
`determined differential between the master and slave devices’ respective device
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`times to calculate a difference between the master’s rendering time and the slave’s
`
`rendering time. Id., Abstract, 2:46-65, 3:49-52, 4:32-38, 8:4-23, FIG. 10.
`
`For instance, the ‘252 Patent discloses one embodiment in which the master
`
`sends each slave a rendering time message that includes a given master “rendering
`
`time” value together with a corresponding master “device time” value. Id.,
`
`Abstract, 2:38-40, 4:24-28, 7:59-8:3, FIG. 9. Upon receiving this message, a slave
`
`first converts the master “device time” value into the slave’s device time domain
`
`using the determined differential between the master and slave devices’ respective
`
`device times. Id., 3:49-52, 4:32-36, 8:6-11.
`
`In turn, the ‘252 Patent discloses that a slave device may calculate the
`
`difference between the master’s rendering time and the slave’s rendering time
`
`using one of the following approaches:
`
`1. After converting the received master device time value into the slave’s
`
`time domain, the slave device identifies the value of its slave rendering
`
`time at the master’s converted device time value and then calculates a
`
`difference between the received master rendering time value and the
`
`identified slave rendering time value;
`
`2. The slave device identifies the slave device time value at which the slave
`
`rendering time had the same value as the received master rendering time
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`value and then calculates a difference between the master’s converted
`
`device time value and the identified slave device time value; or
`
`3. After converting the received master device time value into the slave’s
`
`time domain, the slave device (1) subtracts the received master rendering
`
`time value from the master’s converted device time value to determine a
`
`“master start time” represented in the slave’s time domain, (2) subtracts
`
`the current slave rendering time from the slave’s current device time
`
`value to determine a “slave start time,” and (3) calculates a difference
`
`between the master start time and the slave start time.
`
`Id., 2:46-52, 8:10-23, FIG. 10; see also 2:52-65 (disclosing an alternate
`
`embodiment where the slave device determines the difference between the master
`
`and slave rendering times by evaluating master and slave device times
`
`corresponding to the same “default rendering time”).
`
`
`
`After each slave has determined whether there is a difference between the
`
`master’s rendering time and the slave’s rendering time using the two-phase process
`
`discussed above, each slave then “adjusts the rendering of its content to
`
`compensate for the difference between the master rendering time and the slave
`
`rendering time.” Id., 2:43-46; see also Abstract, 4:38-49. For example, the ‘252
`
`Patent discloses that a slave device can adjust the rendering of its content by
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`skipping ahead in the content to “speed up” rendering or by repeating certain
`
`content to “slow down” rendering, among other possibilities. Id. at 4:38-49.
`
`In line with the ‘252 Patent’s disclosure, the Challenged Claims are all
`
`directed to methods for synchronizing the rendering of content among rendering
`
`devices. Ex.1009, ¶63. The two independent claims of the ‘252 Patent reproduced
`
`below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Id., Claims 1, 11.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A more detailed discussion of each claim limitation of each Challenged
`
`Claim is set forth below.1
`
`
`1 Any statement that elements from different claims are “similar” is made solely in
`
`the context of the issues presented in this Petition, and shall not be taken as an
`
`admission that these elements should be assigned the same claim construction or
`
`should otherwise be treated as having the exact same scope. Petitioner expressly
`
`reserves the right to later argue that elements described herein as “similar” still have
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3), the following sub-sections identify the
`
`specific claim terms of the Challenged Claims that should be construed in order to
`
`resolve the challenges herein along with Petition’s proposed constructions for the
`
`identified claim terms.
`
`A.
`
`“device time”
`
`
`
`The ‘252 Patent states that a rendering device’s “device time” is “the time as
`
`indicated by a designated clock (e.g., system clock) of the rendering device.”
`
`Ex.1001, 2:20-21. Consistent with this disclosure, Petitioner proposes that the term
`
`“device time” be construed here as “a time indicated by any clock of a given
`
`rendering device.”
`
`B.
`
`“rendering time”
`
`
`
`The ‘252 Patent states that a rendering device’s “rendering time” is “the time
`
`represented by the amount of content that has been rendered by that rendering
`
`device.” Id., 2:22-23. For example, if a rendering device has rendered 15 seconds-
`
`worth of a given content stream, the rendering device’s “rendering time” would be
`
`15 seconds. Id., 2:23-26. Consistent with this disclosure, Petitioner proposes that
`
`
`meaningful differences that have an impact on other issues, such as infringement or
`
`§ 112 invalidity.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`the term “rendering time” be construed here as “a time measure of the amount of
`
`content that has already been rendered by a given rendering device.”
`
`C.
`
`Sending/receiving “a plurality of master rendering times”
`
`Each Challenged Claim includes a claim element directed to sending or
`
`receiving “a plurality of master rendering times.” For instance, Challenged Claims
`
`1-3 and 8 recite “sending, from the master rendering device to a first one of a
`
`plurality of slave devices, a plurality of master rendering times indicative of
`
`statuses of the rendering the first content stream at the master rendering device at
`
`different times.” Id., Claim 1. Likewise, Challenged Claims 8 and 11 recite
`
`“receiving, at the slave device from a master rendering device, a plurality of master
`
`rendering times indicative of status of rendering a different content stream at the
`
`master rendering device.” Id., Claim 11.
`
`As noted above, the ‘252 Patent states that a rendering device’s “rendering
`
`time” is “the time represented by the amount of content that has been rendered by
`
`that rendering device.” Id., 2:22-23. Consistent with this disclosure, it is clear
`
`that the foregoing claim elements cover the sending or receiving of a plurality of
`
`time measures of the amount of content from a given content stream that has
`
`already been rendered by the master rendering device.
`
`However, in the Litigation, Patent Owner has taken the position that the
`
`foregoing claim elements also cover the sending or receiving of any “timestamp”
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`related to playback. Ex.1006, 13, 59. While Petitioner disagrees that this
`
`interpretation is correct under Phillips, the claims are to be given their broadest
`
`reasonable construction here, which should be broad enough to cover Patent
`
`Owner’s interpretation in the Litigation. Thus, Petitioner proposes that these claim
`
`elements be construed here to cover the sending and receiving of both (1) time
`
`measures of the amount of content from