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
`
`DECLARATION OF ROMAN CHERTOV IN SUPPORT OF THE INTER
`PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,942,252
`
`PAGE 1 OF 81
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SONOS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`IMPLICIT, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case: To Be Assigned
`
`Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`DECLARATION OF ROMAN CHERTOV IN SUPPORT OF THE INTER
`PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,942,252
`
`PAGE 1 OF 81
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND & QUALIFICATIONS .................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`COMPENSATION ...................................................................................... 5
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ..................................................................... 5
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS................................................................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Anticipation ....................................................................................... 6
`
`Obviousness ....................................................................................... 8
`
`Entitlement to an Earlier Priority Date ............................................. 11
`
`VI.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 12
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘252 PATENT ....................................................... 13
`
`VIII.
`
`PRIORITY DATE .................................................................................. 24
`
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................... 25
`
`X.
`
`OPINIONS REGARDING THE ‘252 PATENT ........................................ 26
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Janevski ....................................................................... 28
`
`Janevski Renders Obvious Each of the Challenged Claims .............. 39
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Independent Claim 1 .............................................................. 40
`
`Dependent Claims 2-3 & 8 ..................................................... 51
`
`PAGE 2 OF 81
`
` i
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Independent Claim 11 ............................................................ 54
`
`Dependent Claim 17 .............................................................. 59
`
`C.
`
`Janevski in Combination with Mills, Berthaud, or Edison Renders
`
`Obvious Each of the Challenged Claims .................................................... 61
`
`D.
`
`Janevski in Combination with Baumgartner Renders Obvious Each of
`
`the Challenged Claims ............................................................................... 68
`
`XI. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................... 72
`
`PAGE 3 OF 81
`
` ii
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`I, Roman Chertov, declare and state as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness for the Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,252 (the “‘252 Patent” or “Balassanian”)
`
`(Ex.1001), as well as the IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,391,791 (the “‘791 Patent”),
`
`filed by Sonos, Inc. (“Sonos”) against Implicit, LLC (“Implicit”). In particular, for
`
`this IPR, I have been asked to render opinions as to the patentability of Claims 1-3,
`
`8, 11, and 17 of the ‘252 Patent (the “Challenged Claims”).
`
`2.
`
`I understand that, on March 10, 2017, Implicit filed a Complaint
`
`against Sonos in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware that alleged
`
`infringement of the ‘791 and ‘252 Patents (the “Underlying Litigation”).
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND & QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`A copy of my Curriculum Vitae (“CV”) is attached to this declaration
`
`as Appendix 1, which contains a detailed record of my professional qualifications,
`
`aspects of which I have summarized below.
`
`4.
`
`In 2002, I earned a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science from the
`
`University of Maryland. In 2004, I earned a Master of Science in Computer
`
`Science from Purdue University. In 2008, I earned a Ph.D. in Computer Science
`
`from Purdue University. My thesis project was related to using high precision
`
`PAGE 4 OF 81
`
` 1
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`empirical network measurements to improve the fidelity of network router
`
`simulations.
`
`5.
`
`During the winters and summers between 1997 and 2002, I worked as
`
`a software developer for Bechtel Group, Inc. During the course of my work at
`
`Bechtel, I developed various controls in C++ and Visual Basic that served as
`
`modular components in a client application that interfaced with a large scale civil
`
`engineering database.
`
`6.
`
`As a student at the University of Maryland, I worked as a software
`
`developer at Market Switch, Inc. in the 2000-2001 timeframe, and I developed
`
`software for the University of Maryland in the 2001-2002 timeframe.
`
`7.
`
`From 2004 to 2008, I was a research assistant at Purdue University.
`
`During that time, I worked on various projects related to networked systems,
`
`including creating high-fidelity simulation router models; creating a network
`
`emulation tool; creating tools for experiment automation on large testbeds, such as
`
`Emulab and DETER, as part of the EMIST project; and conducting data analysis
`
`on large packet captures.
`
`8.
`
`In 2005, I also worked for the Information Science Institute where I
`
`analyzed network performance of nodes and modular routers and developed a
`
`software link monitor.
`
`
`PAGE 5 OF 81
`
` 2
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`In the 2008-2009 timeframe, I was a Senior Research Scientist at
`
`Santa Barbara Labs, LLC. While in that role, I worked on satellite networks,
`
`which resulted in white paper deliverables for the Air Force’s TSAT Mission
`
`Operating System project, and I also contributed to the Click modular router open
`
`source project and developed network card Linux drivers.
`
`10.
`
`In the 2008-2010 timeframe, I also worked as a Visiting Researcher at
`
`the University of California, Santa Barbara. That work involved providing
`
`technical assistance to graduate students in the Networking and Multimedia
`
`Systems Lab and researching, analyzing, and preparing publications related to
`
`satellite IP networks and mobile networks that utilize satellite links.
`
`11.
`
`In the 2009-2010 timeframe, I worked as a computer scientist for
`
`Kelly Technology Group. There, I performed various patent analyses and prepared
`
`expert-witness reports regarding patent infringement and non-infringement.
`
`12.
`
`In the 2010-2012 timeframe, I worked as a Senior Member of the
`
`Technical Staff at the Aerospace Corporation. While in that role, I worked on
`
`various projects related to networked systems, including emulating and assessing
`
`LTE cellular networks; analyzing impacts of network effects on application video,
`
`voice, and data performance; upgrading a networking and distributed systems
`
`testbed; operating a multi-server testbed, which included time synchronization,
`
`network traffic analysis, and coordination between servers; addressing sources of
`
`
`PAGE 6 OF 81
`
` 3
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`network jitter; implementing QoS for satellite modems capable of multiple,
`
`simultaneous wireless links; conducting network integration studies; analyzing
`
`military networks composed of terrestrial and satellite wireless links; and studying
`
`Network Centric Warfare waveform, mobile SATCOM, high fidelity mobile
`
`IPv4/IPv6 SATCOM networking, and serial circuits over packet switched
`
`networks.
`
`13. Beginning in 2012 to the present day, I have been a Software
`
`Development Engineering Manager at Arista Networks. I am responsible for
`
`managing and reviewing the work of a team of over ten software engineers. The
`
`work projects have included developing an inter-process communication system
`
`used in Artista’s Extensible Operating System (“EOS”); implementing IPv6
`
`features for EOS; and augmenting existing IPv4 protocol implementations to allow
`
`for IPv4/IPv6 dual stack operation, among other activities.
`
`14. Starting in spring of 2012 to the present day, I have also worked as a
`
`patent consultant and provided expert witness services. Some of my experiences in
`
`this regard involve analysis of WiFi multimedia devices and network routing
`
`patents.
`
`15.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over ten publications related to
`
`networked systems, and I have been involved with various conference workshop
`
`presentations, including presentations for various IEEE conferences.
`
`
`PAGE 7 OF 81
`
` 4
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`III. COMPENSATION
`
`16.
`
`I am being compensated for the time that I spend consulting on this
`
`IPR at a rate of $270 per hour. However, my compensation does not depend on the
`
`outcome of this IPR.
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`17.
`
`In developing my opinions that are set forth herein, I have reviewed,
`
`among other materials, the ‘252 Patent and its prosecution history, Provisional
`
`Application No. 60/341,574 (the “‘574 Provisional”) (Ex.1008) to which the ‘252
`
`Patent claims priority, and numerous prior art references, including:
`
`Exhibit Number
`Ex.1007
`Ex.1010
`
`Ex.1011
`
`Ex.1012
`
`Ex.1013
`Ex.1014
`Ex.1015
`
`Ex.1016
`
`
`
`Reference
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,338 (“Janevski”)
`Publication entitled “Fault-Tolerant Clock
`Synchronization for Distributed Systems with High
`Message Delay Variation” by Marcelo Moraes de
`Azevedo et al. (“Azevedo”)
`Publication entitled “Network Time Protocol
`(Version 3) Specification, Implementation and
`Analysis” by David L. Mills (“Mills”)
`Publication entitled “Time Synchronization Over
`Networks Using Convex Closures” by Jean-Marc
`Berthaud (“Berthaud”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,278,710 (“Eidson”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,642,171 (“Baumgartner”)
`Publication entitled “Data Smoothing” by J.T.
`Grissom et al. (“Grissom”)
`Publication entitled “Smoothing Methods in
`Statistics” by Jeffrey S. Simonoff (“Simonoff”)
`
`
`PAGE 8 OF 81
`
` 5
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`18.
`
` I am not an attorney and will not offer any opinions on the law. That
`
`said, I have been informed of various principles concerning invalidity of a patent,
`
`as well as other patent-related legal issues. For instance, I understand that a patent
`
`claim can be invalid for various reasons, including invalidity by anticipation or
`
`obviousness in view of prior art. In forming my opinions, I applied the following
`
`legal principles:
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`19. Regarding the legal doctrine of anticipation, my understanding is as
`
`follows:
`
`20. Anticipation of a claim arises if the claimed invention was known or
`
`used by others in the United States, or patented or described in a printed
`
`publication in the United States or a foreign country, before the patentee invented
`
`the claimed invention.
`
`21. Anticipation of a claim can also arise if the claimed invention was
`
`patented or described in a printed publication in the United States or a foreign
`
`country or in public use or on sale in the United States, more than one year prior to
`
`the date that the patentee filed an application for patent directed to the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`
`PAGE 9 OF 81
`
` 6
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`22. Additionally, anticipation of a claim can arise if the claimed invention
`
`was described in either (i) a published patent application filed by another in the
`
`United States before the patentee invented the claimed invention or (ii) a patent
`
`granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the
`
`patentee invented the claimed invention.
`
`23. Anticipation must be found in a single publication, device, or process
`
`(i.e., a single “reference”).
`
`24. For a prior art reference to anticipate, that prior art reference must
`
`disclose each claim limitation, as properly construed, either expressly or
`
`inherently, and the prior art reference must disclose the claimed arrangement or
`
`combination of those limitations either expressly or inherently.
`
`25.
`
`In addition, the disclosure of the prior art reference must be such that
`
`a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) could, based on the
`
`reference, practice the invention without undue experimentation.
`
`26. Although anticipation cannot be established through a combination of
`
`references, additional references may be used to interpret an apparent anticipating
`
`reference. For instance, an additional reference may inform what the apparent
`
`anticipating reference would have meant to a PHOSITA. However, for a claim to
`
`be anticipated, the additional references must make clear that the missing
`
`descriptive matter is inherent to the features described in the apparent anticipating
`
`
`PAGE 10 OF 81
`
` 7
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`reference. In other words, the missing feature must be necessarily or implicitly
`
`present in the apparent anticipating reference.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`27. Regarding the legal doctrine of obviousness, my understanding is as
`
`follows:
`
`28. A claim may be invalid even if each and every claim limitation is not
`
`present or disclosed in a single prior art reference.
`
`29. Under the doctrine of obviousness, a claim may be invalid if the
`
`differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`as a whole, at the time that the claimed invention was made, would have been
`
`obvious to a PHOSITA.
`
`30. A PHOSITA is presumed to have knowledge of the relevant prior art
`
`at the time of the claimed invention.
`
`31. Obviousness is based on the scope and content of the prior art, the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claim, the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`and secondary indicia of obviousness and non-obviousness (to the extent such
`
`indicia exist).
`
`32. The scope of the prior art comprises any prior art that was reasonably
`
`pertinent to the particular problems the inventor faced.
`
`
`PAGE 11 OF 81
`
` 8
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`33. The determination of whether a patent claim would have been obvious
`
`to a PHOSITA is not governed by any rigid test or formula. Instead, a
`
`determination that a claim is obvious is based on a common-sense determination
`
`that the claimed invention is merely a combination of known limitations to achieve
`
`predictable results.
`
`34. Any of the following rationales are acceptable justifications to
`
`conclude that a claim would have been obvious:
`
`• the claimed invention is a combination of known prior art methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`• the claimed invention is a substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results;
`
`• the claimed invention uses known techniques to improve similar devices (or
`
`methods or products) in the same way;
`
`• the claimed invention applies a known technique to a known device (or
`
`method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`• the claimed invention was “obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number
`
`of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`• there is known work in one field of endeavor that may prompt variations of
`
`it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`
`
`PAGE 12 OF 81
`
` 9
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`• there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art reference to
`
`combine prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed inventions.
`
`35.
`
`In addition, a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference (i.e.,
`
`without the need to combine references), if the claim is obvious in view of the
`
`common sense or knowledge of a PHOSITA.
`
`36. An analysis of whether a claimed invention is obvious must not rely
`
`on a hindsight combination of prior art references. Instead, the analysis must
`
`proceed in the context of the time of the claimed invention and consider whether
`
`the invention as a whole would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, taking into
`
`consideration any interrelated teachings of the prior art, the effects of demands
`
`known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and the background
`
`knowledge possessed by a PHOSITA, all in order to determine whether there was
`
`an apparent reason to combine any known elements in the fashion claimed.
`
`37. Secondary indicia of non-obviousness may include, for example:
`
`• a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by the invention
`
`of the patent;
`
`• commercial success of a product or process covered by the patent;
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 13 OF 81
`
` 10
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• unexpected results achieved by the invention;
`
`• praise of the invention by others skilled in the art;
`
`• taking of licenses under the patent by others; and
`
`• deliberate copying of the invention.
`
`38. These secondary considerations are only relevant to obviousness if
`
`there is a connection, or nexus, between them and the claimed invention. For
`
`example, commercial success is relevant to obviousness only if the success of the
`
`product is related to a feature of the patent claims. If commercial success is due to
`
`advertising, promotion, salesmanship or the like, or is due to features of the
`
`product other than those claimed, then any commercial success should not be
`
`considered an indication of non-obviousness.
`
`39.
`
`In forming my opinions set forth herein, I have not seen any evidence
`
`that supports any secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`C. Entitlement to an Earlier Priority Date
`
`40. Regarding the legal principles related to whether a claim or claims of
`
`a patent are entitled to a priority date earlier than the date of the patent filing, my
`
`understanding is as follows:
`
`41. Typically, all of the claims of an issued patent share the same priority
`
`date. However, it is possible for some claims of an issued patent to have one
`
`
`PAGE 14 OF 81
`
` 11
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`priority date, while other claims of that patent have a different priority date. As
`
`such, the priority date analysis is a claim-by-claim inquiry.
`
`42. With that in mind, the priority date for the claims of an issued patent
`
`is generally the filing date of the non-provisional patent application from which the
`
`patent issues. However, an issued patent may include a claim of priority to an
`
`earlier date, such as the filing date of another non-provisional application or of a
`
`provisional application.
`
`43. The mere inclusion of a priority claim, however, does not mean that
`
`any claims of the issued patent are actually entitled to that earlier priority date. In
`
`this regard, there is no presumption that the claims of an issued patent are entitled
`
`to an earlier priority date.
`
`44.
`
`It is the patentee’s burden of establishing that its claimed invention is
`
`entitled to an earlier priority date.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`45. Based on my knowledge and experience in the fields of networked
`
`systems and network-based applications, it is my opinion that, at the time of the
`
`alleged invention, a PHOSITA in the technology area that is relevant to the ‘252
`
`Patent would have had the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited
`
`institution (typically denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer
`
`engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent thereof, and approximately 2-
`
`
`PAGE 15 OF 81
`
` 12
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`4 years of professional experience in the fields of networked systems and network-
`
`based applications, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience.
`
`46.
`
`In forming the opinions set forth herein, I applied this level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF ‘252 PATENT
`
`47. The ‘252 Patent was filed on March 25, 2013 as U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 13/850,260 (the “‘260 Application”). See Balassanian at Cover
`
`Page. 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. at
`
`Cover Page, 8:39-10:30.
`
`48.
`
`In general, the ‘252 Patent is directed to synchronizing the rendering
`
`of content at multiple “rendering devices,” examples of which may include a
`
`“video rendering device” (e.g., a video display), an “audio rendering device” (e.g.,
`
`a stereo system) and a “text rendering device.” Id. at Abstract, FIG. 1, 3:64-4:1.
`
`
`PAGE 16 OF 81
`
` 13
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`49.
`
`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. at 1:40-42.
`
`For instance, the ‘252 Patent notes that video and audio rendering devices “may
`
`have 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. at 1:42-
`
`46.
`
`50.
`
`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. at 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. at 1:49-53.
`
`51. 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. at 1:54-56, 2:17-20. One embodiment of the ‘252 Patent’s
`
`disclosed system is illustrated in FIG. 1:
`
`
`PAGE 17 OF 81
`
` 14
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 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. at FIG. 1, 3:64-4:1.
`
`52.
`
`In the disclosed system, each rendering device may have both a
`
`“device time” and a “rendering time.” Id. at 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. at 2:20-21. On the other hand, the ‘252 Patent states that a
`
`“rendering time is the time represented by the amount of content that has been
`
`rendered by that rendering device.” Id. at 2:22-23; see also id. at 7:52-54 (stating
`
`
`PAGE 18 OF 81
`
` 15
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`that “rendering time continues to reflect the amount of the content that has been
`
`effectively rendered.”). To illustrate with an example, if a rendering device has
`
`rendered 15 seconds-worth of a given presentation (e.g., by displaying rendered
`
`450 video frames at a rate of 30 frames/second), the rendering device’s “rendering
`
`time” would be 15 seconds. Id. at 2:23-32.
`
`53.
`
`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. at 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. at
`
`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.
`
`54.
`
` “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. at 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. at FIG.
`
`1, 4:19-24.
`
`
`PAGE 19 OF 81
`
` 16
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`55. Once the master and slave roles have been assigned, each slave device
`
`in the synchronization system “determines whether it is synchronized with the
`
`master rendering time.” Id. at Abstract, 2:41-46. The ‘252 Patent discloses a
`
`process for making this determination that involves two phases.
`
`56.
`
`In a first phase of the disclosed process, each slave device exchanges
`
`“device time information” with the master device 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. at 3:31-63. The
`
`‘252 Patent’s preferred process for determining a differential between two devices’
`
`respective device times is illustrated in FIG. 2:
`
`
`PAGE 20 OF 81
`
` 17
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at FIG. 2. As shown, this process may generally include the following steps:
`
`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;
`
`
`PAGE 21 OF 81
`
` 18
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`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. at 4:50-67.
`
`57.
`
`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 between the master’s device time and each slave’s device time. Id. at
`
`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. at 5:39-64.
`
`
`PAGE 22 OF 81
`
` 19
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`58.
`
`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. at 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. at 7:21-26.
`
`59. Turning to the second phase of the disclosed process, after the
`
`rendering devices in the system begin to render content, the master device may
`
`periodically send each slave device a “rendering time message” that includes an
`
`indication of the master device’s rendering time. Id. at Abstract, 2:38-40, 4:24-32,
`
`7:59-8:3, FIG. 9. In turn, each slave device may use the indication of the master
`
`device’s rendering time and the determined differential between the master and
`
`slave devices’ respective device times to calculate a difference between the
`
`master’s rendering time and the slave’s rendering time. Id. at Abstract, 2:46-65,
`
`3:49-52, 4:32-38, 8:4-23, FIG. 10.
`
`60. For instance, the ‘252 Patent discloses one embodiment in which the
`
`master device sends each slave device a rendering time message that includes a
`
`
`PAGE 23 OF 81
`
` 20
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`given master “rendering time” value together with a corresponding master “device
`
`time” value. Id. at Abstract, 2:38-40, 4:24-28, 7:59-8:3, FIG. 9. Upon receiving
`
`this message, a slave device 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. at 3:49-52, 4:32-36, 8:6-11.
`
`61.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`PAGE 24 OF 81
`
` 21
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`
`
`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. at 2:46-52, 8:10-23, FIG. 10; see also id. at 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”).
`
`62. After each slave has determined whether it is synchronized with the
`
`master 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. at 2:43-46; see also
`
`id. at Abstract, 4:38-49. For example, the ‘252 Patent discloses that a slave device
`
`can adjust the rendering of its content by skipping ahead in the content to “speed
`
`up” rendering or by repeating certain content to “slow down” rendering. Id. at
`
`4:38-49.
`
`63.
`
`In line with the ‘252 Patent’s disclosure, the Challenged Claims are all
`
`directed to methods for synchronizing the rendering of content at rendering
`
`devices. Further, based on my review of the Challenged Claims, I note that there is
`
`
`PAGE 25 OF 81
`
` 22
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
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
