Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 8
`Entered: September 19, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IMPLICIT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 8
`Entered: September 19, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IMPLICIT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`Sonos, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute
`
`an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 8, 11, and 17 (the “challenged claims”)
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,252 B2 (Exhibit 1001, “the ’252 Patent”). Implicit,
`
`LLC (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6
`
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). We have authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) and
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be
`
`instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “shows that there
`
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Having considered the
`
`arguments and the associated evidence presented in the Petition and the
`
`Preliminary Response, for the reasons described below, we institute inter
`
`partes review of all the challenged claims on all the grounds set forth in the
`
`Petition.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`
`The parties inform us that the ʼ252 Patent is asserted in Implicit, LLC
`
`v. Sonos, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00259-LPS (D. Del.). Pet 2; Paper 5, 2.
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner identifies Implicit, LLC v. D&M Holdings U.S.
`
`Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00258-LPS (D. Del) as a related matter. Paper 5, 2.
`
`C. The ʼ252 Patent
`
`The ʼ252 Patent relates generally to “rendering of content at multiple
`
`rendering devices in a synchronized manner.” Ex. 1001, 1:18–19. The ʼ252
`
`Patent explains that a multimedia presentation may include different types of
`
`content, such as video, audio, and text, that are rendered on different devices
`
`(e.g., a video display and a stereo system). Id. 1:23–25. However, their
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`rendering often needs to occur in a synchronized manner because the video,
`
`audio, and text content may correspond with each other. Id. 1:25–31.
`
`Rendering content on different devices in a synchronized manner may be
`
`difficult, however, because the devices may each have different time
`
`domains or system clocks that operate at slightly different frequencies. This
`
`can lead video and audio content to gradually appear to be out of
`
`synchronization with each other. Id. 2:40–26.
`
`The ʼ252 Patent provides a method and system for “synchronizing the
`
`rendering of content at various rendering devices.” Id. 2:17–18. In this
`
`method, “each device has a device time and a rendering time.” Id. 2:18–20.
`
`“The device time is the time as indicated by a designated clock (e.g., system
`
`clock) of the rendering device. The rendering time is the time represented
`
`by the amount of content that has been rendered by that rendering device.”
`
`Id. 2:20–23. For example, if a rendering device is displaying 30 frames a
`
`second, then after 450 frames have been rendered, the rendering time will be
`
`15 seconds. The corresponding device time may be 30 minutes and 15
`
`seconds, if the device was initialized 30 minutes before rendering began. Id.
`
`2:23–32. “The synchronization system designates one of the rendering
`
`devices as a master rendering device and designates all other rendering
`
`devices as slave rendering devices. Each slave rendering device adjusts the
`
`rendering of its content to keep it in synchronization with the master
`
`rendering device.” Id. 2:33–38. The master rendering device sends
`
`messages with its device and rendering time to the slave devices which
`
`determine whether they are synchronized with the master device and
`
`determines the differential if they are not synchronized. This determination
`
`can be made in a variety of ways which involve comparisons between the
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`master and slave rendering and device times. Id. 2:38–65. The time
`
`differentials between master device time and slave device time can be
`
`smoothed using various techniques such as averaging the last few time
`
`differentials using a decaying function to limit the impact of the oldest time
`
`differential. Id. 7:16–26. Once the device and rendering time differentials
`
`are known the slave rendering devices may adjust their rendering of content
`
`as appropriate to compensate for the difference. Id. 4:24–40.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 11 are independent claims.
`
`Claims 2, 3, and 8 depend from claim 1 and claim 17 depends from claim
`
`11.
`
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
`
`1.
`
`A method comprising:
`
`a master rendering device rendering a first content
`stream; and
`
`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;
`
`wherein the first slave device is configured to smooth a
`rendering time differential that exists between the master
`rendering device and the first slave device in order to render a
`second content stream at the first slave device synchronously
`with the rendering of the first content stream at the master
`rendering device, wherein smoothing the rendering time
`differential includes calculations using the plurality of master
`rendering times.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–3, 8, 11, and 17 of the ʼ252 Patent on
`
`the following grounds:
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`References
`
`§ 103(a) 1–3, 8, 11, and 17
`
`Janevski1
`
`§ 103(a) 1–3, 8, 11, and 17
`
`Janevski and Azevedo2
`
`§ 103(a) 1–3, 8, 11, and 17
`
`Janevski and Mills3
`
`§ 103(a) 1–3, 8, 11, and 17
`
`Janevski and Berthaud4
`
`§ 103(a) 1–3, 8, 11, and 17
`
`Janevski and Eidson5
`
`§ 103(a) 1–3, 8, 11, and 17
`
`Janevski and Baumgartner6
`
`
`
`F. Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`Petitioner proposes that “[a] PHOSITA would have the equivalent of a
`
`four-year degree from an accredited institution in computer science,
`
`computer engineering, electrical engineering, or the equivalent, and
`
`approximately 2-4 years of professional experience in the fields of
`
`
`1 Janevski, U.S. Patent No. 7,269,338, issued Sept. 11, 2007 (Ex. 1007,
`“Janevski”).
`
`2 Azevedo, Fault-Tolerant Clock Synchronization for Distributed Systems
`with High Message Delay Variation, 1994 (Ex. 1010, “Azevedo”).
`
`3 Mills, Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Specification, Implementation
`and Analysis, March 1992 (Ex. 1011).
`
`4 Jean-Marc Berthaud, Time Synchronization Over Networks Using Convex
`Closures, April 2000 (Ex. 1012).
`
`5 Eidson, U.S. Patent No. 6,278,710, issued Aug. 21, 2001 (Ex. 1013).
`
`6 Baumgartner, U.S. Patent No. 5,642,171, issued June 24, 1997 (Ex. 1014).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`networked systems and networked-based applications, or an equivalent level
`
`of skill and knowledge.” Pet. 24 n.2.
`
`Patent Owner does not provide an alternative proposal for the level of
`
`ordinary skill.
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of
`
`ordinary skill.
`
`G. Claim Interpretation
`
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016)
`
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard).
`
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to
`
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Wellman, Inc. v.
`
`Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Vivid Techs.,
`
`Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the following terms: “device
`
`time,” “rendering time,” sending/receiving “a plurality of master rendering
`
`times,” “smooth a rendering time differential,” and “determining a smoothed
`
`rendering time differential” and “window.” Pet. 18–23. Patent Owner notes
`
`that it disagrees with these proposed constructions, but does not dispute
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`Petitioner’s constructions for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 11.
`
`We determine that an explicit construction of the claims is not
`
`necessary for the purposes of determining whether there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the
`
`claims challenged in the Petition. This determination does not preclude the
`
`parties from arguing their proposed constructions of the claims during trial.
`
`A final determination as to claim construction will be made at the close of
`
`the proceeding, after any hearing, based on all the evidence of record. The
`
`parties are expected to assert all their claim construction arguments and
`
`evidence in the Petition, Patent Owner’s Response, Petitioner’s Reply, or
`
`otherwise during trial, as permitted by our rules.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`Petitioner argues claims 1–3, 8, 11, and 17 are obvious over the cited
`
`prior art references. Pet. 35–68. To support its contentions, Petitioner
`
`provides an explanation of how Janevski teaches each limitation of the
`
`challenged claims, except for the smoothing aspect of independent claims 1
`
`and 11. According to the Petitioner, however, the smoothing aspect of the
`
`independent claims would be an insignificant advance over Janevski alone,
`
`or would have been obvious over the teachings of Azevedo, Mills, Berthaud,
`
`Eidson, or Baumgartner. Id. Petitioner also relies on the declaration of Dr.
`
`Roman Chertov (Ex. 1009, “Chertov Decl.”) in support of its arguments.
`
`We discuss each of Petitioner’s challenges below.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`A. Obviousness over Janevski Alone
`
`1. Overview of Janevski
`
`Janevski is directed to “techniques for synchronizing playback of two
`
`or more digital streams based on renderable content of those streams.”
`
`Ex.1007, 1:8–11. Janevski describes a situation in which two or more
`
`individuals watch content recorded on their personal video recorders
`
`(typically television broadcasts) at different locations simultaneously while
`
`communicating over the phone about the content being watched. Id.
`
`1:38–44. Janevski notes that one possible problem that may occur in this
`
`situation is that the content being played at the respective locations may fall
`
`out of synch with each other and therefore affect the enjoyment of watching
`
`a program simultaneously together. Id. 1:44–52. Janevski, therefore,
`
`“provides a system that allows two or more people with personal video
`
`recorders (PVRs) to precisely synchronize their time-shifted viewing.” Id.
`
`5:3–5.
`
`In Janevski’s system, certain PVRs are designated as “initiators”
`
`while others are referred to as “participants.” Id. 6:16–18. The initiator is
`
`initially the PVR that starts the session, but the role of the initiator is handed
`
`off to any PVR that performs a control function such as stop, pause, fast
`
`forward, or reverse. Id. 6:18–25. “To ensure that the PVRs . . . participating
`
`in a session remain synchronous, a status message is sent out periodically by
`
`the ‘initiator.’” Id. 7:36–39. The status message includes “an indication of
`
`the program being watched, the current mode of watching (e.g., normal play,
`
`fast forward, pause), an indication of the time into the program, and
`
`information characteristic of content of a digital bit stream from which
`
`playback to the message sender is being generated.” Id. 7:41–46.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`Janevski describes a two phase synchronization method, the first
`
`phase of which is to perform time synchronization and the second phase is to
`
`fine tune the time synchronization by performing frame synchronization.
`
`Id. 7:47–50; 9:10–14; 10:28–35. Janevski describes one embodiment of the
`
`time synchronization phase in which a time misregistration is calculated.
`
`The time misregistration is a difference or misalignment of the video timers
`
`of the PVRs and is calculated using information in messages sent between
`
`initiator and participant PVRs. See id. 9:15–10:3. A participant
`
`compensates for the time misregistration by advancing or rolling back the
`
`time count of its video timer to synchronize with the initiator. Id. 12:59–
`
`13:7. Although Janevski describes one way of performing time
`
`synchronization, Janevski notes that “[t]ime synchronization can be
`
`implemented in many different known ways,” and cites to Azevedo as a
`
`reference describing examples of certain clock synchronization techniques.
`
`Id. 8:53–59.
`
`After time compensation, the process proceeds to the frame
`
`synchronization phase which entails finding the frame in the participant’s
`
`stream that most closely matches the initiator’s frame. Id. 10:52–62. This is
`
`done by determining frame misregistration, which is described as “the
`
`content-wise misalignment of two playbacks.” Id. 10:58–60. The
`
`participant then compensates for such frame misregistration by fast
`
`forwarding or rewinding playback so that synchronization is achieved. Id.
`
`10:52–62; 13:24–26; 15:22–26.
`
`2. Petitioner’s Assertions as to Independent Claims 1 and 11
`
`Claim 1 recites “[a] method comprising: a master rendering device
`
`rendering a first content stream.” Petitioner argues Janevski discloses a
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`master rendering device that renders a first content stream by designating
`
`certain PVRs as the “initiator” and other PVRs as participants. Pet. 36
`
`(citing Ex. 1007 Fig. 1; 6:4–25). The initiator and participant PVRs in
`
`Janevski receive broadcasts of video content that take the form of digital bit
`
`streams then play back their respective bit streams in a synchronized
`
`manner. Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1007 Fig. 1, Abstract, 1:8–11, 5:3–32, 6:4–25,
`
`15:64–16:5, 16:35–37, 16:44–52). According to Petitioner, “the ‘initiator’
`
`PVR playing back a ‘digital bit stream’ amounts to the claimed functionality
`
`of a ‘master rendering device rendering a first content stream.’” Pet. 37.
`
`Claim 1 recites “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.” Petitioner argues Janevski teaches this
`
`limitation because its initiator PVRs send periodic status messages to
`
`participant PVRs and the status messages include the initiator’s “time into
`
`the [video] program,” and Janevski also discloses that the status messages
`
`include “query time stamps.” Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1007 Abstract, 7:36–50,
`
`10:19–35, 12:5–36).
`
`Claim 1 recites
`
`wherein the first slave device is configured to smooth a
`rendering time differential that exists between the master
`rendering device and the first slave device in order to render a
`second content stream at the first slave device synchronously
`with the rendering of the first content stream at the master
`rendering device, wherein smoothing the rendering time
`differential includes calculations using the plurality of master
`rendering times.
`
`Petitioner argues Janevski teaches every aspect of this claim element other
`
`than the smoothing function. Pet. 38–39. In particular, Petitioner argues
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`Janevski discloses that each participant PVR periodically determines
`
`whether there is a misalignment between the initiator PVR’s video content
`
`and its own video content and, if so, synchronizes the video content. Pet. 39
`
`(citing Ex. 1007, Abstract, 7:36–50, 10:36–60, 12:59–13:29, 15:32–33).
`
`According to Petitioner, the synchronization includes the steps of
`
`determining a time misregistration (i.e., a difference in the time counts of the
`
`PVRs) and compensating for the time misregistration by adjusting the
`
`participant’s time count. Pet. 39–40 (citing Ex. 1007, Abstract, 7:36–50,
`
`8:39–10:3, 10:19–35, 11:43–12:4, 12:5–36, 12:59–13:21). The steps further
`
`include calculating a frame misregistration (i.e., a differential between the
`
`video frames that have been rendered by the initiator PVR and the video
`
`frames that have been rendered by the participant PVR), and compensating
`
`for this frame misregistration by slowing down, speeding up, rewinding,
`
`fast-forwarding, and/or halting its rendering of the video content. Pet. 40
`
`(citing Ex. 1007, Abstract, 3:52–57, 10:60–62, 13:24–30, 14:35–63).
`
`Petitioner contends that the foregoing establishes that the calculated values
`
`for both time count differential and frame differential are used by the
`
`participant PVR to render video content synchronously with the initiator
`
`PVR and that the time count differential and the frame differential each
`
`separately amounts to “two or more calculated values for a differential
`
`between a time measure of a master rendering device and a corresponding
`
`time measure of the first slave device.” Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1009
`
`¶¶ 117–118).
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that “[t]he only aspect of [the above claim
`
`element] not expressly disclosed by Janevski is the ‘smoothing’ function.”
`
`Pet. 42. However, Petitioner contends that applying a smoothing function to
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`either the time count differential or the frame differential would be an
`
`insignificant advance over Janevski because smoothing (e.g., by averaging
`
`or filtering) was a conventional technique well within the knowledge of the
`
`ordinary artisan used for reducing volatility in a set of measured values. Pet.
`
`42 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 120–121, Ex. 1015, Ex. 1016).
`
`3. Patent Owner’s Arguments
`
`Patent Owner does not explicitly present arguments against
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on Janevski alone and instead focuses on the grounds
`
`where Janevski is combined with other prior art. See Prelim. Resp. 16–22.
`
`In these arguments, however, Patent Owner contends that none of the prior
`
`art references, including Janevski, discloses smoothing a rendering time
`
`differential. Prelim. Resp. 16.
`
`4. Analysis
`
`Based on our current review of the record, we are persuaded Petitioner
`
`has provided sufficient evidence that Janevski discloses each of the
`
`limitations of claim 1, and analogously of claim 11, except the smoothing
`
`aspect of these claims. We are, however, unpersuaded that one of skill in the
`
`art would be motivated to smooth the time count or frame differential based
`
`on Janevski’s disclosure alone. Petitioner contends that smoothing was a
`
`well-known technique for reducing volatility in a set of measured values.
`
`Pet. 43. Although this statement may be true in general, for the instance
`
`where Janevski is considered alone, no persuasive evidence is provided that
`
`smoothing would be applied to the values of time count or frame differential
`
`in the specific context of synchronizing content streams.
`
`We therefore conclude, on the record before us, that the Petition does
`
`not set forth adequate reasoning to support a challenge of claims 1 and 11,
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`and claims 2, 3, 8, and 17, which depend from one of claims 1 and 11, as
`
`obvious over Janevski alone.
`
`B. Obviousness over Janevski and Each One of Azevedo, Mills, Berthaud,
`and Eidson
`
`1. Overview of Azevedo
`
`Azevedo relates to fault tolerant clock synchronization in a distributed
`
`system. Ex. 1010, 1. Azevedo explains that in a distributed computer
`
`system time synchronization is important and must be maintained in spite of
`
`the presence of faults in the system. Fault tolerant clock synchronization
`
`may be achieved via interactive convergence algorithms in which nodes
`
`exchange their clock values and determine clock correction terms at regular
`
`intervals. Id. Azevedo presents the measured performance of three
`
`interactive convergence algorithms, one of which is identified as “the
`
`adaptive exponential averaging fault-tolerant midpoint algorithm,”
`
`(“AEFTMA”). Id. AEFTMA includes a weight factor that “smooths” the
`
`clock correction term. Id. 4.
`
`2. Overview of Mills
`
`Mills, a 1992 reference, describes a Network Time Protocol (“NTP”)
`
`“which is used to synchronize timekeeping among a set of distributed time
`
`servers and clients. It defines the architectures, algorithms, entities and
`
`protocols used by NTP and is intended primarily to implementors.” Ex.
`
`1011, 1. Section 4 of Mills “describes algorithms useful for deglitching and
`
`smoothing clock-offset samples collected on a continuous basis.” Id.
`
`3. Overview of Berthaud
`
`Berthaud “presents a general time synchronization algorithm that
`
`analyzes the time offset between any two computers’ clocks in a network
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`and its evolution, by using mathematical topology properties.” Ex. 1012,
`
`265. Berthaud discusses synchronization between master and slave devices
`
`by measuring time offset between their clocks. An estimate of a clock offset
`
`is produced from a set of observations “and several tools may be used in the
`
`estimation evaluation process, such as: mean value, weighted average, linear
`
`regression, midpoint functions, etc.” Ex. 1012, 266. The “estimation is used
`
`to determine the amount by which a slave should adjust its local clock.” Id.
`
`4. Overview of Eidson
`
`Eidson “relates to enhancements to time synchronization in distributed
`
`systems.” Ex. 1013, 1:9–10. “The enhancements include techniques that
`
`compensate for jitter associated with communication circuitry in the
`
`distributed system including jitter associated with physical interfaces and
`
`gateways in the distributed system.” Ex. 1013, Abstract. Eidson describes
`
`that “[o]ne method for reducing the negative effects of jitter . . . is to average
`
`the differences computed between the time value in the time-stamp latch and
`
`the time-stamp . . . .” Ex. 1013, 4:16–21. Eidson explains that the averaged
`
`result is then used to adjust the local clock. Ex. 1013, 4:30–32.
`
`5. Petitioner’s Assertions
`
`a. Independent Claim 1
`
`As before, Petitioner argues Janevski teaches each of the limitations
`
`of claims 1 and 11, except for the smoothing aspect of these claims. Pet. 42.
`
`For the smoothing element of claim 1, Petitioner argues any one of Azevedo,
`
`Mills, Berthaud, or Eidson, (“the clock synchronization references”) shows
`
`that a one of ordinary skill was already aware of the benefits of using
`
`smoothing when performing synchronization. Pet. 44.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`According to Petitioner, Janevski discloses that time synchronization
`
`between initiator and participant PVRs “can be implemented in many
`
`different known ways” and Janevski identifies Azevedo as disclosing some
`
`examples of these known ways. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1007, 8:53–59).
`
`Azevedo relates to fault tolerant clock synchronization in a distributed
`
`system. Ex. 1010, 1. One of the examples disclosed in Azevedo involves
`
`the computation of a weighted average of certain clock correction terms in
`
`order to smooth the clock correction term, so that volatility is attenuated.
`
`Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1010, 1–4).
`
`According to Petitioner, “Janevski’s citation to the Azevedo paper
`
`provides further support for the conclusion that modifying a ‘participant’
`
`PVR such that was configured to calculate a weighted average of the
`
`periodically-calculated values for either the ‘time count’ differential or the
`
`‘frame’ differential would have been nothing more than a trivial change for a
`
`PHOSITA.” Pet. 44–45 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 122). Petitioner also argues that
`
`Janevski repeatedly emphasizes the goal of providing precise
`
`synchronization. Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1007, Abstract, 3:43–57, 5:3–5).
`
`Hence, according to Petitioner, “it would have been well known to a
`
`PHOSITA in 2001 that applying data smoothing to a periodically-calculated
`
`data variable would reduce volatility of such periodic calculations and
`
`thereby improve the overall accuracy of the calculation.” Pet. 45–46 (citing
`
`Ex. 1009 ¶ 124). Petitioner concludes that, in light of Janevski’s goal of
`
`providing precise synchronization, a person of ordinary skill would be
`
`motivated to modify Janevski to use smoothing to reduce volatility and
`
`improve the accuracy of calculating Janevski’s time count or frame
`
`differentials. Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 125).
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`For similar reasons, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill would
`
`have combined Janevski with one of either Mills, Berthaud, or Eidson to
`
`smooth Janevski’s time count differential to reduce volatility and provide
`
`precise synchronization. Pet. 59–64. Mills, Berthaud, and Eidson relate to
`
`synchronizing clocks of devices in a distributed network, just as Azevedo
`
`does. Pet. 59–63. Petitioner argues that “the nature of the problem to be
`
`solved by Janevski relates to accuracy of synchronizing playback between
`
`rendering devices that are nodes in a distributed network, and Mills,
`
`Berthaud, and Eidson all disclose mechanisms for improving the accuracy of
`
`‘time synchronization’ between nodes in a distributed network.” Id. at 64
`
`(citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 166). Each, according to Petitioner, applies smoothing in
`
`their respective synchronization techniques, thus one of skill in the art would
`
`have combined each one of Mills, Berthaud, or Eidson with Janevski to
`
`smooth the periodically calculated values for Janevski’s time count
`
`differential between initiator and participant PVRs. Id. (citing Ex. 1009
`
`¶ 167).
`
`Based on this record, we find Petitioner has provided sufficient
`
`evidence that Janevski combined with each one of the clock synchronization
`
`references teaches the limitations of claim 1, as well as sufficient evidence
`
`that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reason to combine
`
`Janevski and the respective references.
`
`b. Dependent Claim 2
`
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein one of the
`
`plurality of master rendering times includes a master device time at which
`
`the master rendering device renders content.”
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`Petitioner argues Janevski teaches the limitations of claim 2 because it
`
`discloses “that the ‘initiator’ PVR (the ‘master rendering device’)
`
`periodically sends each ‘participator’ PVR a ‘status message’ that contains
`
`an indication of the ‘initiator’ PVR’s ‘time into the [video] program’ as well
`
`as a ‘query time stamp’ for ‘a frame that the initiator has just played or has
`
`recently played.’” Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1007, Abstract, 7:36–50, 10:19–35,
`
`12:5–36; Ex. 1009 ¶ 129).
`
`Based on this record, we find Petitioner has provided sufficient
`
`evidence that each of the proposed combinations of Janevski and the
`
`respective clock synchronization references discussed above teaches the
`
`limitations of claim 2.
`
`c. Dependent Claim 3
`
`Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein sending the
`
`plurality of master rendering times comprises sending a series of
`
`transmissions to the first slave device, each one of the series of transmissions
`
`being at a different time.”
`
`Petitioner argues Janevski teaches the limitations of claim 3 because it
`
`discloses that status messages, which contain the time into the video
`
`program and the query time stamp, are sent periodically from initiator to
`
`participant PVR. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1007, 7:36–38, 15:32–33). According
`
`to Petitioner the periodic transmission of status messages from initiator to
`
`participant PVR amounts to “sending the plurality of master rendering times
`
`comprises sending a series of transmissions to the first slave device, each
`
`one of the series of transmissions being at a different time.” Pet. 49 (citing
`
`Ex. 1009 ¶ 130).
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`Based on this record, we find Petitioner has provided sufficient
`
`evidence that each of the proposed combinations of Janevski and the
`
`respective clock synchronization references discussed above teaches the
`
`limitations of claim 3.
`
`d. Dependent Claim 8
`
`Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the first content
`
`stream is sent from a first source device to the master rendering device and
`
`the second content stream is sent to the first slave device from a difference
`
`source device.”
`
`Petitioner argues Janevski discloses that the “initiator” and
`
`“participant” PVRs (the “master rendering device” and “slave rendering
`
`device”) each receive respective broadcasts of “digital bit streams” that may
`
`be sent by “different cable or satellite providers.” Pet. 49 (citing Ex.1007,
`
`3:13–16, 6:5–39, 16:44–52). Petitioner contends “[b]ecause these ‘different
`
`cable or satellite providers’ amount to different sources, this disclosure
`
`amounts to the claim functionality of ‘the first content stream [being] sent
`
`from a first source device to the master rendering device and the second
`
`content stream [being] sent to the first slave device from a difference source
`
`device.’” Pet. 49 (citing Ex.1009 ¶ 131).
`
`Based on this record, we find Petitioner has provided sufficient
`
`evidence that each of the proposed combinations of Janevski and the
`
`respective clock synchronization references discussed above teaches the
`
`limitations of claim 8.
`
`e. Independent Claim 11
`
`Claim 11 recites limitations that are analogous to those recited in
`
`claim 1 and Petitioner relies on largely the same arguments as those made
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`for the corresponding limitations of claim 1. See Pet. 50–55. In particular,
`
`Petitioner once again relies on Janevski’s disclosure of an initiator and
`
`participant PVRs as teaching a master rendering device and slave device
`
`respectively. Pet 50–51. Similarly, Petitioner relies on Janevski’s disclosure
`
`of sending periodic status messages that include a time into the video
`
`program and a query time stamp as teaching receiving a plurality of master
`
`rendering times indicative of status of rendering a different content stream at
`
`the master rendering device. Pet. 51–52 (citing Ex. 1007, Abstract,
`
`7:36–50). Petitioner also relies on Janevski’s disclosure of time count
`
`differential and frame differential, discussed above with respect to claim 1,
`
`as each teaching a “rendering time differential” that is calculated “a plurality
`
`of master rendering times and a plurality of slave rendering times.” Pet.
`
`52–54. Petitioner similarly argues that the time count and frame count
`
`differentials are compensated for to result in synchronous rendering at the
`
`master and slave devices. Pet. 55 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 146–149).
`
`As before, Petitioner acknowledges that Janevski does not explicitly
`
`teach smoothing, but argues, for the same reasons set forth with respect to
`
`claim 1, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`modify Janevski to smooth the time count and frame differentials, based on
`
`Janevski’s own disclosure and also combined with the clock synchronization
`
`references. Pet. 54–56.
`
`Based on this record, we find Petitioner has provided sufficient
`
`evidence that Janevski combined with each one of the clock synchronization
`
`references teaches the limitations of claim 11, as well as sufficient evidence
`
`that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reason to combine the
`
`references.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00767
`Patent 8,942,252 B2
`
`f. Dependent Claim 17
`
`Claim 17 depends from claim 11 and recites “wherein the master
`
`rendering device and the slave device are part of a same system.”
`
`Petitioner argues
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
