Filed September 19, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`On behalf of Amazon.com, Inc.
`By:
`Joseph R. Re
`Colin B. Heideman
`Christie R.W. Matthaei
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Telephone: 206-405-2000
`Facsimile: 206-405-2001
`Email: BoxSEAZNL1495LP2@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Patent No. 9,124,950
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CUSTOMPLAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On behalf of Amazon.com, Inc.
`By:
`Joseph R. Re
`Colin B. Heideman
`Christie R.W. Matthaei
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Telephone: 206-405-2000
`Facsimile: 206-405-2001
`Email: BoxSEAZNL1495LP2@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Patent No. 9,124,950
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CUSTOMPLAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`GROUND 1A: CLAIMS 6 AND 19 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`OVER RANGAN -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`A.
`Retrieving Video Frame Identifiers ---------------------------------------- 1
`1.
`Rangan’s Thumbnail Images Are Video Frame
`Identifiers -------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`Rangan Discloses “Retrieving” a Video Frame
`Identifier --------------------------------------------------------------- 2
`Rangan’s Keyframe Thumbnails Are Responsive
`to a Play Location ---------------------------------------------------- 3
`Rangan’s Keyframe Frame Numbers Are “Video
`Frame Identifiers” ---------------------------------------------------- 3
`Rangan Inherently Discloses Retrieving a Video
`Frame Identifier ------------------------------------------------------- 4
`Rangan Renders This Limitation Obvious ------------------------ 5
`6.
`Displaying Indications ------------------------------------------------------- 5
`B.
`GROUND 1B: CLAIMS 2, 14, AND 16 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE OVER RANGAN & RAKIB ------------------------------ 8
`A.
`Rangan Discloses a Request for Additional Information --------------- 8
`B.
`Combining Rangan and Rakib --------------------------------------------- 9
`1.
`No Physical Combination Is Necessary --------------------------- 9
`2.
`Rakib’s Methodology Is Irrelevant -------------------------------- 11
`III. GROUND 1C: CLAIM 4 IS UNPATENTABLE OVER
`RANGAN, RAKIB & ABECASSIS --------------------------------------------- 12
`A.
`Rangan Discloses Resuming Playing at a Beginning of a
`Video Clip -------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
`
`5.
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`B.
`C.
`
`Obviousness Over Rangan ------------------------------------------------- 13
`B.
`Obviousness Over Abecassis ---------------------------------------------- 13
`C.
`IV. GROUND 2A: CLAIMS 2, 6, 14, 16, AND 19 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE OVER ARMSTRONG AND LIVESEY ---------------- 14
`A.
`Retrieving Video Frame Identifiers --------------------------------------- 14
`1.
`PO Misconstrues the Claim Limitation --------------------------- 14
`2.
`Armstrong Discloses This Limitation ---------------------------- 15
`Displaying an Initial Indication ------------------------------------------- 18
`Contemporaneously Displaying a Subsequent Indication ------------- 18
`1.
`Armstrong Discloses This Limitation ---------------------------- 18
`2.
`Livesey Discloses This Limitation -------------------------------- 20
`3. Motivation to Combine Armstrong and Livesey ---------------- 21
`V. GROUND 2B: CLAIM 4 IS UNPATENTABLE OVER
`ARMSTRONG, LIVESEY, & ABECASSIS ----------------------------------- 22
`VI. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 2, 4, 6, 14, 16, AND 19 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE OVER RAKIB & LIVESEY ------------------------------ 23
`A.
`Retrieving a Video Frame Identifier -------------------------------------- 23
`B.
`The Remaining Limitations of Claim 6 ---------------------------------- 24
`C. Motivation to Combine Rakib and Livesey ----------------------------- 25
`D.
`Claim 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 25
`1.
`Pausing ---------------------------------------------------------------- 26
`2.
`Resuming ------------------------------------------------------------- 26
`CONCLUSION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s):
`
`Cases:
`Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC,
`825 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ---------------------------------------------- 10, 12
`In re Fulton,
`391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ---------------------------------------------- 11, 20
`In re May,
`574 F.2d 1082 (C.C.P.A. 1978) --------------------------------------------------- 23
`Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc.,
`874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ----------------------------------------------------- 20
`In re NuVasive, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ---------------------------------------------------- 4
`Pavo Sols. LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc.,
`711 Fed. App’x 1020 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 6, 2017) --------------------------------- 11
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. ProMOS Techs, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01413, Paper 33 (P.T.A.B. October 22, 2018) ----------------------- 4
`Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Rea,
`721 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ------------------------------------------ 11, 14, 26
`Whitserve, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 10 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ------------------------------------------------------ 23
`
`Miscellaneous:
`Trial Practice Guide Update (August 2018) ------------------------------------------ 4
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`
`Patent Owner’s (“PO”) Response mischaracterizes the claims and prior art,
`
`relies on the conclusory opinions of its expert, and ignores the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA. On cross-examination, PO’s expert, Dr. Reader (“Reader”), contradicted
`
`and undermined many of PO’s arguments and confirmed that the claimed steps
`
`were known. (See, e.g., Ex. 1101, 44:19-22, 51:7-19, 72:6-19 (retrieving video
`
`frame identifiers), 78:22-79:4, 83:15-20 (contemporaneously displaying indica-
`
`tions), 83:21-84:2 (receiving a request for information), 87:3-7 (displaying infor-
`
`mation in response to an indication).) The challenged claims should be canceled.
`
`I. GROUND 1A: CLAIMS 6 AND 19 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`OVER RANGAN.
`A. Retrieving Video Frame Identifiers
`1.
`
`Rangan’s Thumbnail Images Are Video
`Frame Identifiers.
`
`PO argues Rangan’s thumbnail images may not be video frame identifiers
`
`(“VFIs”) because two thumbnail images might be identical. (POR, 14.) PO’s hy-
`
`pothetical is irrelevant because both experts agree that the content of Rangan’s
`
`thumbnail images is irrelevant to whether they are VFIs. (Ex. 1102 ¶¶10-11; Ex.
`
`1101, 28:7-10 (VFI need not identify contents of frame).) Indeed, Reader admitted
`
`a VFI is “anything that identifies a frame to the apparatus.” (Ex. 1101, 33:3-6).
`
`Rangan’s system uses keyframe thumbnails to identify the frames from
`
`which they were generated. (Ex. 1102 ¶¶9-13.) For example, Rangan’s keyframe
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`
`thumbnail identifies a frame because it may initiate playback from the associated
`
`frame. (Ex. 1014, 30:8-14, 9:15-20; Ex. 1102 ¶9.) Moreover, it is undisputed that
`
`the thumbnail image is the “first frame in the scene.” (POR, 15; Ex. 1101, 114:7-
`
`9.) Because only one “first frame” in a scene exists, Rangan’s thumbnail image
`
`identifies a single frame. (Ex. 1102 ¶10; Ex. 1101, 114:14-115:2.)
`
`2.
`
`Rangan Discloses “Retrieving” a Video
`Frame Identifier.
`
`Despite explicitly referring to Rangan’s process as “retrieving” a first video
`
`frame image (POR, 16), PO argues Rangan’s retrieving is not the “functional
`
`equivalent” of the claimed “retrieving” (id.). PO provides no basis for this argu-
`
`ment, and Reader admitted that this limitation is satisfied regardless of how the
`
`function is performed. (Ex. 1101, 55:17-56:2.)
`
`PO also concedes that “Rangan discloses generating, detecting, indexing,
`
`storing, and displaying” thumbnails (POR, 16), but never explains how displaying
`
`the thumbnails is possible without first retrieving them from storage. Indeed, both
`
`experts agree retrieving is necessary in order to display. (Ex. 1002 ¶49; Ex. 1102
`
`¶¶16-17; Ex. 1101, 119:20-120:1.) Rangan explicitly refers to “obtaining”
`
`keyframe thumbnails from a cache for display (Ex. 1014, 34:67-68) and the ’950
`
`defines “retrieving” as including “obtaining (Ex. 1001, 15:4-8; Ex. 1102 ¶17.)
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`
`3.
`
`Rangan’s Keyframe Thumbnails Are
`Responsive to a Play Location.
`
`PO next argues that, because keyframe thumbnails may come from a cache,
`
`they are not “responsive to a play location.” (POR, 16-17.) This is incorrect.
`
`Even Reader admits that each keyframe thumbnail is responsive to a single frame
`
`in the video. (Ex. 1101, 118:17-19, 114:7-115:2; see also Ex. 1014, 29:60-64.)
`
`Each keyframe is therefore responsive to the play location associated with that
`
`frame. (Ex. 1102 ¶18; Ex. 1101, 49:14-50:7 (play location need not be current lo-
`
`cation).) Each keyframe is also responsive to the scene in which that individual
`
`frame appears and, as PO concedes, the “scene change[]” prior to the keyframe.
`
`(POR, 17.) All of these are play locations within the playing of a video. (Ex. 1102
`
`¶18.) Reader also admitted that information (e.g., keyframe thumbnails) respon-
`
`sive to a play location that is stored and retrieved from memory (e.g., cache) is still
`
`responsive to the same play location. (Ex. 1101, 119:8-19.) Indeed, a VFI is nec-
`
`essarily stored in memory. (Ex. 1102 ¶¶19-20; Ex. 1101, 119:20-120:1 (infor-
`
`mation must be stored to be displayed).)
`
`4.
`
`Rangan’s Keyframe Frame Numbers Are
`“Video Frame Identifiers.”
`
`Petitioner explained that the frame number of the keyframe thumbnail con-
`
`stitutes a VFI. (Pet., 18; POR, 11.) PO never disputes this. (POR, 11-17.) Nor
`
`does PO dispute that the frame number is retrieved from a plurality of frame num-
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`
`bers and responsive to a play location. (Pet., 18; Ex. 1002 ¶51.) Thus, it is undis-
`
`puted that Rangan’s frame numbers satisfy this limitation and PO waived any ar-
`
`gument to the contrary. In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1379-82 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (argument not raised in POR is waived); Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Pro-
`
`MOS Techs, Inc., IPR2017-01413, Paper 33 at 20 (P.T.A.B. October 22, 2018) (re-
`
`fusing to consider new argument in PO’s sur-reply); Trial Practice Guide Update
`
`(August 2018) at 15 (sur-reply may not raise new issues, belatedly present evi-
`
`dence, or “embark in a new direction”); Scheduling Order (Paper 14) at B.1.a
`
`(“any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived”).
`
`5.
`
`Rangan Inherently Discloses Retrieving a
`Video Frame Identifier.
`
`PO argues Rangan does not inherently disclose retrieving a VFI because
`
`Rangan may not “retrieve the first frame of any scene to create a keyframe.”
`
`(POR, 19.) This contradicts Rangan’s disclosure. Rangan teaches creating the
`
`keyframe from the first frame of a scene. (Ex. 1014, 29:8-10, 29:60-64, 31:40-45,
`
`claim 14.) Both experts agree that the quote PO relies on (POR, 19-20) for this ar-
`
`gument discusses how scene changes are detected, not which frames are used to
`
`create a keyframe. (Ex. 1101, 112:21-114:7; Ex. 1102 ¶14.) Regardless, the frame
`
`Rangan uses is irrelevant because any keyframe (or frame number) still identifies a
`
`video frame and is therefore a VFI. (Ex. 1102 ¶13; Ex. 1101, 118:20-119:2.) How
`
`scene changes are detected is similarly irrelevant. (Ex. 1102 ¶¶13-14.)
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`
`PO makes the same arguments for retrieving a subsequent VFI (POR, 21),
`
`and those arguments should be rejected for the same reasons.
`
`6.
`
`Rangan Renders This Limitation Obvious.
`
`PO argues Petitioner failed to “establish that a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to modify Rangan” to use frame numbers. (POR, 18.) But no modifica-
`
`tions would be necessary because Rangan discloses identifying frames by frame
`
`numbers. (Ex. 1014, 14:45-63, 30:15-36; Ex. 1102 ¶23.) A POSITA would have
`
`understood that Rangan’s system would reference the frame number to create the
`
`keyframe thumbnail and to access that frame. (Id.; Ex. 1002 ¶¶51-52.) Thus, even
`
`if not disclosed or inherent in Rangan, it would have been obvious to use the frame
`
`number. (Id.)
`
`B. Displaying Indications
`
`PO asserts Rangan’s hotspot cannot be an indication if the remaining portion
`
`of the keyframe thumbnail is the VFI. (POR, 12.) But Reader admitted that
`
`Rangan’s hotspots were indications (Ex. 1101, 111:6-8) and that indications could
`
`be overlaid on an image (id., 61:6-9).
`
`Rangan’s hotspot is a distinct grid, coloration, or other clue that can be over-
`
`laid on a video frame or thumbnail. (Ex. 1014, 15:27-60, 9:64-10:9, Fig. 4; Ex.
`
`1102 ¶29.) Rangan’s hotspot is the same as the ’950 patent’s indications:
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`
`
`
`Rangan (Ex. 1014, Fig. 4)
`
`’950 Patent (Ex. 1001, Fig. 1B)
`
`
`
`
`(See Ex. 1001, 7:38-48 (describing the indication as “an outline 141 … [or] an area
`
`of increased brightness”).) Rangan describes displaying the same “indication” on
`
`the thumbnail images.1 (Pet., 19-20.)
`
`PO then argues that Rangan’s indication is not responsive to the play loca-
`
`tion. (POR, 20-21.) This argument misinterprets the claim, which both experts
`
`agree—and the claim language makes clear—requires the indication to be respon-
`
`sive to the VFI, not the play location. (Ex. 1102 ¶27; Ex. 1101, 63:15-64:2.) The
`
`available information, not the indication, is responsive to the play location. (Id.)
`
`Rangan’s hotspots are “painted over their corresponding video frames.” (Ex.
`
`1014, 29:15-16.) Accordingly, they are responsive to individual keyframe thumb-
`
`
`1 Contrary to PO’s argument (POR, 12-13), Petitioner’s annotations
`
`encircled the indications (hotspots), not the entire thumbnail. (Pet., 20.)
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`
`nails (VFIs). (Id., 29:15-16; Ex. 1101, 127:10-128:1 (indications indicate infor-
`
`mation is available for the corresponding frame/thumbnail); Ex. 1102 ¶27.)
`
`Rangan’s hotspot (indication) signals that information is available that is re-
`
`sponsive to the play location (the frame/scene represented by the keyframe). (Ex.
`
`1014, 13:64-14:7 (annotations “serve to impart additional, supplemental infor-
`
`mation about the scene and/or the objects in it”), 19:28-45, 25:57-26:2, 27:4-6; Ex.
`
`1002 ¶¶54-55; Ex. 1102 ¶27; Ex. 1101, 129:2-7 (information associated with the
`
`indication is responsive to the play location).) Thus, Rangan discloses this limita-
`
`tion.
`
`Rangan would also disclose this limitation under PO’s interpretation. Be-
`
`cause Rangan’s VFI (keyframe) identifies an individual frame (and associated sce-
`
`ne), the keyframe identifies a play location. (Ex. 1102 ¶28.) Thus, Rangan’s
`
`hotspots are responsive to both a VFI (keyframe or frame number) and a play loca-
`
`tion (frame/scene associated with the keyframe or frame number). (Id.)
`
`PO makes the same incorrect arguments for displaying a subsequent indica-
`
`tion. (POR, 22.) PO waived all other arguments. Accordingly, claims 6 and 19
`
`should be canceled.
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`
`II. GROUND 1B: CLAIMS 2, 14, AND 16 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`OVER RANGAN & RAKIB.
`A. Rangan Discloses a Request for
`Additional Information.
`
`PO argues that Petitioner relies on Rangan’s hotspots “as disclosing two
`
`separate claim elements.” (POR, 23-24.) PO mischaracterizes the Petition.
`
`Petitioner set forth three independent ways Rangan discloses this limitation.
`
`First, Rangan’s indication (hotspot) may be annotated and those annotations may
`
`include a URL. (Pet., 26-27.) The annotations appear upon a “mouse over” and
`
`the URL is activated when the user clicks on the object. (Id.) Thus, Rangan dis-
`
`closes displaying indications (hotspots) associated with multiple play locations
`
`(keyframes from multiple frames), receiving a request (mouse over) responsive to
`
`the indication, displaying information (annotation containing URL) associated with
`
`the initial indication (hotspot), receiving a request for additional information (click
`
`on URL), and displaying additional information (another video, web page or im-
`
`age). (Id.; Ex. 1102 ¶35.) PO never addresses this disclosure, which does not rely
`
`on a single “structure” to disclose “two separate claim elements.”
`
`Second, Rangan discloses a first hyperlink in a first video that directs a user
`
`to a second video with a second hyperlink. (Pet., 27.) PO addresses this argument,
`
`but it does not involve any double-mapping. Rangan discloses displaying indica-
`
`tions (hotspots) associated with multiple play locations (keyframes from multiple
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`
`frames), receiving a request (click on URL) responsive to the indication, displaying
`
`information (a second hypervideo) associated with the initial indication (hotspot),
`
`receiving a request for additional information (clicking on a different link in the
`
`second hypervideo), and displaying additional information (another video, web
`
`page or image). (Id.; Ex. 1102 ¶36.) This does not rely on the “same structure” as
`
`disclosing “two separate claim elements,” and Reader admitted these disclosures
`
`satisfy the limitation. (Ex. 1101, 92:11-94:4.)
`
`Third, Rangan discloses that users may access additional information by
`
`branching from the original hyperlink, such as by engaging in e-commerce. (Pet.,
`
`27; Ex. 1102 ¶37.) This also requires no double-mapping, and PO does not dispute
`
`that this disclosure satisfies the claim limitation.
`
`B. Combining Rangan and Rakib
`
`PO does not dispute that Rakib discloses this claim limitation. (POR, 24-
`
`26.) PO argues only that a POSITA would not have combined Rakib’s and
`
`Rangan’s systems. (Id.) PO is incorrect.
`
`1.
`
`No Physical Combination Is Necessary.
`
`PO first argues that “modifying Rangan with Rakib” would change
`
`Rangan’s “principle of operation” because the two systems have different operat-
`
`ing structures. (POR, 24-25.) Even if that were true, which it is not, it would be
`
`irrelevant. Petitioner never proposed a physical combination of the systems. (Pet.,
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`
`29-30.) Rather, Petitioner explained a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`combine their teachings, and to “modify Rangan’s apparatus to permit requests for
`
`additional information as disclosed in Rakib.” (Id.; Ex. 1102 ¶39.) This does not
`
`depend on the systems’ physical combinability. Allied Erecting & Dismantling
`
`Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the test is
`
`not whether the features of a secondary reference may be “bodily incorporated into
`
`the structure of the primary reference”).
`
`Nothing in Rangan’s system would need to change for it to receive a request
`
`for additional information. (Ex. 1102 ¶40.) Rangan’s system already performs this
`
`function. (Ex. 1014, 14:52-64, 9:7-30; Ex. 1002 ¶¶76-79.)
`
`PO’s assertion that Rangan and Rakib function “on two completely different
`
`modes of operation” (POR, 24-26) is incorrect. Both identify objects using coor-
`
`dinates and retrieve supplemental information using analogous identifiers and a ta-
`
`ble linking the object, coordinates, and supplemental information. (Ex. 1014,
`
`28:38-48, Fig. 15; Ex. 1013 ¶¶[0088]-[0090], [0094]; Ex. 1102 ¶41.) The two sys-
`
`tems are not incompatible. (Ex. 1102 ¶41.)
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`
`2.
`
`Rakib’s Methodology Is Irrelevant.
`
`For claims 14 and 16, PO argues that Rakib’s use of coordinates “is prone to
`
`error” and “tedious and burdensome.” (POR, 27.) But Petitioner never proposes
`
`using Rakib’s methodology to receive the requests for additional information.
`
`Rangan’s system performed this function. (See Section II.A.1.)
`
`PO’s argument is also contradicted by Reader. (Ex. 1101, 132:21-133:7.)
`
`Reader admitted a POSITA would have understood that using coordinates like
`
`Rakib’s was a reasonable method of annotating the video to alert the user to the
`
`presence of information. (Id.) A POSITA would have recognized Rakib’s method
`
`as fast, efficient, and easy to use. (Ex. 1102 ¶¶45-47.) Furthermore, the ’950 pa-
`
`tent discloses using a similar method to Rakib’s but provides no discussion of any
`
`problems to be overcome nor novel solutions to any such problems. (Ex. 1001,
`
`7:38-48; Ex. 1102 ¶45.) PO cannot now argue that such a method was nonobvious,
`
`problematic, or outside the skill of a POSITA. Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Rea, 721
`
`F.3d 1371, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`Even if Rakib’s method were prone to error, tedious, or burdensome, a
`
`POSITA would not be deterred from combining its teachings with Rangan. (Ex.
`
`1102 ¶47; In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (proposed combina-
`
`tion need not be “the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the
`
`prior art in order to provide motivation”); Pavo Sols. LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co.,
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`
`Inc., 711 Fed. App’x 1020, 1028-29 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 6, 2017) (“a less than optimal
`
`result” does not necessarily defeat obviousness); Allied Erecting, 825 F.3d at 1381
`
`(a modification that impedes functionality or has disadvantages does not necessari-
`
`ly obviate motivation to combine).)
`
`Finally, PO argues Rakib fails to teach retrieving a VFI. (POR, 26.) But
`
`this ground relies on Rangan, not Rakib, for this element. (See Section I.A.) Re-
`
`gardless, PO is incorrect. Rakib also discloses retrieving a VFI. (See Section
`
`VI.A.)
`
`III. GROUND 1C: CLAIM 4 IS UNPATENTABLE OVER
`RANGAN, RAKIB & ABECASSIS
`
`PO does not dispute that Rangan discloses or renders obvious claim 4’s
`
`pausing limitation. (See POR, 27-31.) PO argues only that a POSITA would not
`
`have been motivated to resume playing at a beginning of a video clip responsive to
`
`the request for additional information. (Id.) PO is wrong.
`
`A. Rangan Discloses Resuming Playing at a
`Beginning of a Video Clip.
`
`Rangan discloses this limitation because it discloses playing a clip that is the
`
`“additional information.” (Pet., 38.) PO does not dispute that Rangan discloses
`
`resuming playing in this manner, or that such resuming meets the claim limitation.
`
`Nor does Reader. Accordingly, Rangan discloses this limitation and PO waived
`
`any argument to the contrary.
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`
`B. Obviousness Over Rangan
`
`PO argues that the ’950 patent discloses “additional” resuming options.
`
`(POR, 28-29.) But the ’950 patent lists the same options disclosed in Hammoud,
`
`albeit using different terminology. (Ex. 1001, 11:65-12:9; Ex. 1026, 210; Ex. 1102
`
`¶¶48-50.) The only additional option is resuming at a location “responsive to …
`
`the amount of time that the playing of the video has been paused.” (Ex. 1001,
`
`12:4-9.) Thus, PO identifies, at most, five options. (Ex. 1102 ¶¶50-51.) That is
`
`hardly a “non-finite number of options,” and the claimed option would have been
`
`obvious. (Id.)
`
`C. Obviousness Over Abecassis
`
`PO argues Abecassis discloses resuming at the beginning of a “segment,”
`
`and that a “segment” is not a “clip.” (POR, 30-31.) That is incorrect. The ’950
`
`patent defines “clip” as a “segment that is smaller than a chapter.” (Ex. 1001,
`
`3:59-65.) Abecassis likewise discloses that a “segment” is smaller than a chapter.
`
`(Ex. 1024, 6:66-67, 10:38-45 (chapters are divided into segments).) Moreover,
`
`both the “segment” in Abecassis and the “clip” in the ’950 patent are defined by
`
`the individuals appearing on screen. (Ex. 1001, 3:62-64; Ex. 1024, 39:64-40:11
`
`(defining segments by individual panelists such that a viewer may skip a panelist
`
`by skipping a segment).) Thus, Abecassis’ “segment” is a “clip” as defined in the
`
`’950 patent. (Ex. 1102 ¶53.) To the extent PO argues not all segments are clips, a
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`
`POSITA would have known that a segment must necessarily begin with a clip and
`
`therefore a beginning of a segment must also be the beginning of a clip. (Id.)
`
`Moreover, resuming at the beginning clip was a simple design choice that
`
`would have been obvious. (Ex. 1102 ¶¶53-54.) The ’950 specification provides no
`
`discussion of any problems to be overcome with resuming at the beginning of a
`
`clip and no discussion of novel solutions to any such problems. (Id.) PO cannot
`
`now argue that this trivial design choice would have been nonobvious, problemat-
`
`ic, or outside the skill of a POSITA. Smith & Nephew, 721 F.3d at 1381.
`
`PO does not dispute any of Petitioner’s motivations to combine. According-
`
`ly, these claims would have been obvious in view of Rangan, Rakib, and Abecas-
`
`sis.
`
`IV. GROUND 2A: CLAIMS 2, 6, 14, 16, AND 19 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE OVER ARMSTRONG AND LIVESEY.
`A. Retrieving Video Frame Identifiers
`1.
`
`PO Misconstrues the Claim Limitation.
`
`PO argues that identifying a play location is a “precondition” to enable re-
`
`trieval of a VFI. (POR, 34.) That is incorrect. Reader admitted that, although the
`
`VFI is related to a play location, a play location need not be identified to retrieve a
`
`VFI responsive to that location. (Ex. 1101, 36:10-15, 34:14-35:4; see also Ex.
`
`1102 ¶56.) The challenged claims do not recite “identifying a play location.” And
`
`they certainly do not require doing so before a VFI is retrieved. (Ex. 1102 ¶56.)
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`
`PO’s argument is premised on the assumption that a play location and a VFI
`
`are not “functionally equivalent.” (POR, 32-34.) But the ’950 patent explicitly
`
`states that a play location may be identified by “frame identifiers.” (Ex. 1001,
`
`18:13-24; Ex. 1102 ¶55.) Thus, the identification of a VFI (e.g., a frame number)
`
`also identifies a play location in a video. (Id.)
`
`2.
`
`Armstrong Discloses This Limitation.
`
`PO argues that Petitioner’s assertion that Armstrong retrieves a VFI is un-
`
`supported. (POR, 34.) That is incorrect. (See Pet., 42 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶112 and
`
`Ex. 1021 ¶¶[0031], [0051]-[0052], [0056], Figs. 2A-B).) In the cited paragraphs,
`
`Armstrong discloses indexing each menu by frame number (frame count) and
`
`comparing each viewed frame to a range of frames associated with the menus to
`
`determine the appropriate menu. (Ex. 1021 ¶¶[0031], [0051]-[0052], [0056]; see
`
`also id. ¶¶[0043] (menu structure indexed based on “a frame count of the primary
`
`content of what is appearing on screen”), [0049] (indexing determines menu be-
`
`cause the “frame count is incremented … for each frame being played during video
`
`playback”), [0050], [0053] (frame count compared to frame ranges to determine
`
`menu associated with scene); Ex. 1102 ¶57.) This comparison constitutes, and re-
`
`quires, retrieving the frame number. (Ex. 1102 ¶57.)
`
`Despite Armstrong’s express disclosure of this limitation, PO argues that
`
`Armstrong’s ¶[0031] discloses a result that does not require retrieving a VFI.
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`
`(POR, 35.) Neither PO nor Reader offer any theories for how the result in ¶[0031]
`
`could be obtained without retrieving a VFI. That’s because Armstrong expressly
`
`discloses retrieving a VFI. (Ex. 1102 ¶57.)
`
`Next, PO argues that the “DVD authoring process” in Armstrong’s ¶[0030]
`
`would not require retrieving a VFI. (POR, 35-37.) But ¶[0030] merely explains
`
`that Figure 2A shows how the frame-specific menu system is implemented during
`
`DVD authoring. (Ex. 1021 ¶[0031]; Ex. 1102 ¶¶59-60.) That paragraph is con-
`
`sistent with Petitioner’s position and shows authoring a DVD to provide the func-
`
`tionality during playback that Armstrong describes. (Id.) Neither PO nor Reader
`
`provide any explanation for why Armstrong’s DVD authoring process—which
`
`confirms Petitioner’s arguments—preclude Armstrong from disclosing the limita-
`
`tion. Moreover, Armstrong is not limited to DVD authoring processes. (Ex. 1021
`
`¶[0035]; Ex. 1102 ¶61.)
`
`PO also implies that, because Armstrong discloses that the menus may be
`
`scene-based, they would not require retrieving a VFI. (POR, 36-37 (citing Ex.
`
`1021 ¶[0040])2.) This is inaccurate. Armstrong discloses retrieving a VFI (e.g.,
`
`frame number from frame count) to identify the appropriate menu for display re-
`
`
`2 PO quotes portions of Armstrong relating to the menu but neither PO nor
`
`Reader explain why this disclosure is relevant. (POR, 36.)
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`
`gardless of whether the menus are scene-based or frame-based. (Ex. 1021
`
`¶¶[0031], [0043], [0049]-[0053], [0056], Figs. 2A-B; Ex. 1102 ¶60.)
`
`Finally, PO argues Armstrong identifies the menu before identifying the
`
`point of suspension of the video. (POR, 37-38.) That argument was flatly contra-
`
`dicted by PO’s expert, who admitted that Armstrong discloses first retrieving the
`
`frame number responsive to the request location, and then using that frame number
`
`to determine which menu to display. (Ex. 1101, 150:18-152:2.) Bovik agrees.
`
`(Ex. 1102 ¶62.)
`
`PO’s argument also contradicts Armstrong, which repeatedly discloses that
`
`that the point of suspension and the corresponding frame count are determined
`
`first, and then the appropriate menu is determined. (Ex. 1021 ¶¶[0031] (menus
`
`correspond to current scene/frame), [0043] (menu structure indexed based on “a
`
`frame count of the primary content of what is appearing on screen”), [0049] (menu
`
`depends on frame count), [0050], [0051] (the menu “depend[s] on where (e.g., the
`
`specific frame or frame count) the scene is suspended”), [0052], [0053] (frame
`
`count compared to range of frames to determine menu); Ex. 1102 ¶62.) Armstrong
`
`never suggests identifying a menu first. Armstrong discloses retrieving, from a
`
`plurality of VFIs (frame numbers), a first VFI (frame number) that is responsive to
`
`a request location (point of suspension). PO never addresses most of Armstrong’s
`
`disclosure.
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`
`B. Displaying an Initial Indication
`
`PO argues Petitioner failed to establish that the indication is displayed re-
`
`sponsive to a VFI. (POR, 39.) PO is incorrect. (Pet., 43-44.) PO cites a portion
`
`of the Petition that expressly states that “Armstrong also discloses that the display-
`
`ing is responsive to the frame identifier because the menu selected for display is
`
`determined based on the frame number.” (POR, 39 (emphasis added); see also
`
`Section IV.A.2, supra (frame identifier determined before menu determined).)
`
`Thus, Petitioner established that Armstrong’s displaying of an indication (menu) is
`
`responsive to the VFI (e.g., frame number). (Ex. 1102 ¶63.)
`
`C. Contemporaneously Displaying a Subsequent Indication3
`1.
`
`Armstrong Discloses This Limitation.
`
`PO admits Armstrong discloses adding indices as new items are introduced.
`
`(POR, 42.) PO nevertheless argues this disclosure is insufficient based on an un-
`
`disclosed hypothetical and because Armstrong also discloses other allegedly incon-
`
`sistent embodiments. (Id., 42-45.) PO’s arguments are conclusory, unsupported
`
`by Reader, and irrelevant.
`
`
`3 PO’s arguments for the limitation regarding receiving a request for infor-
`
`mation are based entirely on the arguments discussed in this Section. (POR,
`
`50-51.) They are incorrect for the reasons discussed herein.
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01497
`Amazon.com v. CustomPlay
`
`First, PO argues that indices would be “deleted” because otherwise the sys-
`
`tem could not be used for “the entire primary video content.” (Id., 42-43.) But
`
`Armstrong never suggests that indices are deleted and PO provides no citation to
`
`Armstrong for its argument. (Id., 42.) Nor does Reader offer such an opinion.
`
`Regardless, even if some indices were eventually deleted, Armstrong would still
`
`disclose this limitation when some of the indices from prior frames appear on the
`
`screen with indices from subsequent frames. (Ex. 1102 ¶65.)
`
`PO’s argument is based on the presumption that the video is long and/or has
`
`numerous indices, such that deletion would be required. But that is not the case.
`
`Armstrong’s system is applicable to
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
