UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`MINDGEEK USA INC., MINDGEEK S.À.R.L.,
`MG FREESITES LTD., MG FREESITES II LTD.,
`MG CONTENT RK LTD., MG CONTENT DP LTD.,
`MG CONTENT RT LTD., MG PREMIUM LTD.,
`MG CONTENT SC LTD., MG CYPRUS LTD.,
`LICENSING IP INTERNATIONAL S.À.R.L.,
`9219-1568 QUÉBEC INC. d/b/a ENTREPRISE MINDGEEK CANADA, and
`COLBETTE II LTD.,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
`
`PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`Patent No. 6,212,527
`
`Issue Date: July 18, 2000
`
`Title: Method and Apparatus for Cataloguing Multimedia Data
`____________________________________________________________
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT LIST
`Exhibit Number Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,212,527 to Gustman
`
`Canadian Patent Application No. 2,128,667 to Jones-Lee
`
`Objective video quality assessment system based on human
`
`perception to Webster et al.
`
`European Patent Application Pub. No. 0 609 517 to Braden-
`
`Harder et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,668,897 to Stolfo
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,307,266 to Hayashi et al.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jagadish
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,212,527 File History
`
`DexMedia, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, Inc., et al.,
`
`Case No. 15-1242, Dkt. Nos. 127-128.
`
`Patent 2128667 Summary, Canadian Intellectual Property
`
`Office
`
`Help: Bibliographic and Text Data Fields, Canadian
`
`Intellectual Property Office
`
`Dr. Jagadish CV
`
`i
`
`

`

`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`Query by Image and Video Content: The QBIC System to
`
`Flickner et al.
`
`Efficient Organization and Access of Multi-Dimensional
`
`Datasets on Tertiary Storage Systems to Chen et al.
`
`A Distributed Hierarchical Storage Manager for a Video-on-
`
`Demand System to Federighi et al.
`
`Content-Based Video Indexing and Retrieval to Smoliar et
`
`al.
`
`Media Streams: An Iconic Visual Language for Video
`
`Representation to Davis
`
`IDIC: Assembling Video Sequences from Story Plans and
`
`Content Annotations to Sack et al.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES................................................................................2
`A. Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information..................................2
`B. Real Parties-in-Interest ...............................................................................3
`C. Related Matters...........................................................................................3
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING.....................................5
`IV. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW..................7
`V. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED......................................7
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’527 PATENT AND PRIOR ART ...............................8
`A. State of the Technology Prior to the ’527 Patent .......................................8
`B. The ’527 Patent...........................................................................................9
`C. The Prior Art.............................................................................................10
`1. Jones-Lee.............................................................................................10
`2. Webster................................................................................................12
`3. Braden-Harder.....................................................................................13
`4. Stolfo ...................................................................................................14
`5. Hayashi................................................................................................15
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION.............................................................................15
`VIII.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .....................................16
`IX. CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY.............................................................................................16
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-4 are Obvious in view of Jones-Lee and
`Webster.....................................................................................................16
`B. Ground 2: Claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 are Anticipated by Braden-
`Harder.......................................................................................................25
`C. Ground 3: Claim 16 is Obvious in view of Braden-Harder and
`Stolfo ........................................................................................................37
`D. Ground 4: Claims 5-9 and 11 are Obvious in view of Braden-
`Harder and Hayashi..................................................................................38
`
`iii
`
`

`

`E. Ground 5: Claims 10, 12, and 13 are Obvious in view of Braden-
`Harder, Hayashi, and Solfo ......................................................................52
`X. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................56
`
`iv
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`MINDGEEK USA INC., MINDGEEK S.À.R.L., MG FREESITES LTD.,
`
`MG FREESITES II LTD., MG CONTENT RK LTD., MG CONTENT DP LTD.,
`
`MG CONTENT RT LTD., MG PREMIUM LTD., MG CONTENT SC LTD., MG
`
`CYPRUS LTD., LICENSING IP INTERNATIONAL S.À.R.L., 9219-1568
`
`QUÉBEC INC. d/b/a ENTREPRISE MINDGEEK CANADA, and COLBETTE II
`
`LTD. (“Petitioners” or “MindGeek”) petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 claims 1-16 (“the Challenged Claims”) of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,212,527 (“’527 Patent”).
`
`Preservation Technologies LLC has alleged that, “The Asserted Patents are
`
`currently owned by the University of Southern California and Preservation has
`
`obtained a license with all necessary rights from the Shoah Foundation of the
`
`University of Southern California (the ‘Shoah Foundation’) to enforce these patents
`
`against Defendants in its own name.” Preservation Technologies LLC v. MindGeek
`
`USA Inc. et al, Case No. 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 63, ¶41.
`
`The University of Southern California and Preservation Technologies LLC are
`
`collectively referred to as “Patent Owner.”
`
`1
`
`

`

`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A.
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information
`
`LEAD
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Frank M. Gasparo (Reg. No. 44,700)
`
`William Hector (Reg. No. 66,823)
`
`(Lead)
`
`Address:
`
`Venable LLP
`
`(Backup)
`
`Address:
`
`Venable LLP
`
`1270 Avenue of the Americas, 24th
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`Floor
`
`101 California Street, Suite 3800
`
`New York, NY 10020
`
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`Phone and Fax:
`
`P: (212) 370-6273.
`
`F: (212) 307-5598
`
`Phone and Fax:
`
`P: (415) 653-3750
`
`F: (415) 653-3755
`
`Please send all correspondence to the lead counsel at the address shown above.
`
`Petitioners consent to service by email at: FMGasparo@Venable.com. Powers of
`
`Attorney is filed concurrently herewith under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`The Office is authorized to charge the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) to
`
`Deposit Account No. 22-0261, and any other fees that might be due in connection
`
`with this Petition.
`
`2
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`The real parties-in-interest for this Petition are MINDGEEK USA INC.,
`
`MINDGEEK S.À.R.L., MG FREESITES LTD., MG FREESITES II LTD., MG
`
`CONTENT RK LTD., MG CONTENT DP LTD., MG CONTENT RT LTD., MG
`
`PREMIUM LTD., MG CONTENT SC LTD., MG CYPRUS LTD., LICENSING IP
`
`INTERNATIONAL S.À.R.L., 9219-1568 QUÉBEC INC. d/b/a ENTREPRISE
`
`MINDGEEK CANADA, and COLBETTE II LTD.
`
`Based on Preservation Technologies LLC’s allegations above, we understand
`
`the real parties-in-interest regarding ownership of the ’527 Patent are University of
`
`Southern California and Preservation Technologies LLC.
`
`C.
`
`Related Matters
`
`Petitioners identify the following matters related to the ’527 Patent:
`
`Ongoing
`
`1.
`
`Preservation Technologies LLC v. MindGeek USA Inc. et al., Case
`
`No. 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR (C.D. Cal.);
`
`2.
`
`Preservation Technologies LLC v. MG Content RK Ltd. et al., Case
`
`No. 2:18-cv-03058-DOC-JPR (C.D. Cal.) (consolidated with the above case. Dkt.
`
`No. 14);
`
`Dismissed
`
`3
`
`

`

`3.
`
`Preservation Technologies LLC v. MindGeek USA Inc., Case No.
`
`1:14-cv-01292 (D. Del.);
`
`4.
`
`Preservation Technologies LLC v. Viacom, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
`
`01293 (D. Del.);
`
`5.
`
`Preservation Technologies LLC v. MLB Advanced Media L.P., Case
`
`No. 1:14-cv-01294 (D. Del.);
`
`6.
`
`Preservation Technologies LLC v. NFL Enterprises LLC, Case No.
`
`1:14-cv-01295 (D. Del.)
`
`7.
`
`Preservation Technologies LLC v. Vevo LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
`
`01296 (D. Del.);
`
`8.
`
`Preservation Technologies LLC v. World Wrestling Entertainment,
`
`Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01297 (D. Del.);
`
`9.
`
`Preservation Technologies LLC v. CSC Holdings LLC, Case No. 1:13-
`
`cv-00032 (D. Del.);
`
`10.
`
`Preservation Technologies LLC v. Cablevision Systems Corp., Case
`
`No. 8:12-cv-01540 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`11.
`
`Preservation Technologies LLC v. Walmart Stores, Inc. et al., Case
`
`No. 8:12-cv-01541 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`12.
`
`Preservation Technologies LLC v. Hulu LLC, Case No. 8:11-cv-
`
`01985 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`4
`
`

`

`13.
`
`Preservation Technologies LLC v. Sony Corporation of America, Case
`
`No. 2:11-cv-10694 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`14.
`
`Preservation Technologies LLC v. Dish Network Corp., Case No.
`
`2:11-cv-10692 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`15.
`
`Preservation Technologies LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 2:11-cv-
`
`10701 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`16.
`
`Preservation Technologies LLC v. Netflix, Inc. et. al., Case No. 8:11-
`
`cv-01860 (C.D. Cal.); and
`
`17.
`
`Preservation Technologies LLC v. Netflix, Inc. et. al., Case No. 8:11-
`
`cv-01862 (C.D. Cal.).
`
`Contemporaneously with this filing, Petitioners are also filing a petition for
`
`IPR of three other patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,092,080; 6,199,060; and 6,574,638.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`On October 10, 2014, Preservation Technologies filed a complaint against
`
`MindGeek USA Incorporated in the District of Delaware listing, among eleven
`
`patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,092,080, 6,199,060, 6,212,527, and 6,574,638.
`
`Preservation Technologies LLC v. MindGeek USA Incorporated, 1:14-cv-01292-
`
`SLR (D. Del.). The complaint was served on October 14, 2014. Preservation
`
`Technologies LLC v. MindGeek USA Incorporated, 1:14-cv-01292-SLR (D. Del.),
`
`Dkt. No. 4. Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without reason on February
`
`5
`
`

`

`2, 2015 (id., Dkt. No. 10) and remained silent until it filed its subsequent case on
`
`December 11, 2017. Preservation Technologies LLC v. MindGeek USA Inc. et al,
`
`Case No. 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 1.
`
`Petitioners acknowledge recent Federal Circuit precedent that even if a
`
`complaint is voluntary dismissed, the one year IPR time bar applies to such a
`
`complaint. Click-To-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018) (“The principal question on appeal is whether the Board erred in interpreting
`
`the phrase served with a complaint alleging infringement of a patent recited in §
`
`315(b) such that the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the civil action in
`
`which the complaint was served does not trigger the bar. We hold that it did.”)
`
`(quotations and citation omitted).
`
`In dissent, Judge Dyk (joined by Judge Lourie) outlined several reasons why
`
`the decision is incorrect and that “section 315(b) time-bar should not apply when the
`
`underlying complaint alleging infringement has been voluntarily dismissed without
`
`prejudice.” Click-To-Call Techs., 899 F.3d at 1355. We understand that DexMedia,
`
`Inc. (formerly Ingenio, Inc.) has been granted an extension to January 11, 2019, to
`
`file writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. DexMedia, Inc. v. Click-
`
`to-Call Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-1242, Dkt. No. 128. See Exhibit 1009.
`
`In Preservation Technologies LLC v. MindGeek USA Inc. et al, Case No. 2:17-
`
`cv-08906-DOC-JPR (C.D. CA), the complaint was filed on December 11, 2017 with
`
`6
`
`

`

`service of the complaint of certain entities on December 12, 2017.
`
`To the extent Click-To-Call is relevant to the present IPR, we believe Click-
`
`To-Call was incorrectly decided and to preserve our rights of appeal and otherwise,
`
`we are filing the ’527 Patent petition. Thus, based on the foregoing reasons,
`
`Petitioners certify the ’527 Patent is eligible for IPR and that Petitioners are not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the patent claims on the
`
`Grounds identified herein.
`
`IV. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`As further detailed below, claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 are invalid under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102, and claims 1-13, and 16 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus,
`
`“there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioners respectfully request cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’527 Patent
`
`(Exhibit 1001) based on the following Grounds of Unpatentability, set forth below:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-4 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious in
`
`view of Canadian Patent Application No. CA2128667A1 to Jones-Lee (“Jones-
`
`Lee”) (Exhibit 1002) and “Objective video quality assessment system based on
`
`human perception” to Arthur A. Webster et al. (“Webster”) (Exhibit 1003).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Ground 2: Claim 14, 15, 17, and 18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`as anticipated by European Patent Application Pub. No. 0 609 517 to Braden-Harder
`
`et al. (“Braden-Harder”) (Exhibit 1004).
`
`Ground 3: Claim 16 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious in view
`
`Braden-Harder (Exhibit 1004) and U.S. Patent No. 5,668,897 to Stolfo (“Stolfo”)
`
`(Exhibit 1005).
`
`Ground 4: Claims 5-9 and 11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious in view of Braden-Harder (Exhibit 1004) and U.S. Patent No. 5,307,266 to
`
`Hayashi et al. (“Hayashi”) (Exhibit 1006).
`
`Ground 5: Claims 10 and 12-13 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious in view of Braden-Harder (Exhibit 1004), Hayashi (Exhibit 1006), and
`
`Stolfo (Exhibit 1005).
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’527 PATENT AND PRIOR ART
`
`A.
`
`State of the Technology Prior to the ’527 Patent
`
`It was typical practice to associate a set of keywords or index terms with a
`
`document, and to index only these in a catalog. Exhibit 1007, ¶27. Attributes or
`
`descriptions of the stored multimedia object could be stored and indexed in a catalog
`
`separate from the object itself. Id., ¶28.
`
`By the early 1990s, computers had become powerful enough and digital
`
`storage capacities had increased enough that it became feasible to digitize and store
`
`8
`
`

`

`videos: not just short clips but even entire movies. Id., ¶30. There was tremendous
`
`interest in so-called “video-on-demand.” Id., ¶30. There was a great deal of progress
`
`made on the storage and retrieval of videos. Id., ¶30. There was also work reported
`
`on building these servers with tertiary storage. Id., ¶31. And also in a distributed
`
`environment. Id., ¶31.
`
`When a user specifies some search terms to retrieve a text document, it is often
`
`useful for the system to point the user to specific portions of the document that are
`
`relevant, particularly if the document is long.
`
`Id., ¶32. Technology for such
`
`identification of “segments” or “snippets” of a text document has long been known.
`
`Id., ¶32.
`
`Similarly, given a long video, it is helpful for a user to be pointed to specific
`
`portions of it that are relevant to a particular search request. Id., ¶33. Fortunately,
`
`standard methods for video storage already segment videos into scenes. Id., ¶33.
`
`B.
`
`The ’527 Patent
`
`The ’527 Patent was filed on November 2, 1998, claiming priority as
`
`continuation application to U.S. Patent Application No. 08/680,504 (now U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,832,495), filed on July 8, 1996. The ’527 Patent issued on April 3, 2001.
`
`The ’527 Patent “relates to the cataloguing [of] multimedia data and includ[es]
`
`storage and retrieval mechanisms.” Exhibit 1001, 1:9-11. The ’527 Patent admits
`
`that, “[i]ncreasingly, computer systems are being used to present multimedia
`
`9
`
`

`

`material. Such material is usually in the form of text, graphics, video, animation, and
`
`sound.” Id., 1:13-15. The ’527 Patent concedes that the prior art contained indexing
`
`and keywords (including synonyms).
`
`A system that creates an index for frame sequences in a
`motion image is described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,428,774,
`Takahashi et al., issued on Jun. 27, 1995. . . . Data (i.e.,
`frame sequences of a motion picture) is indexed based on
`a time sequence of frames of the data. A system that uses
`keywords to locate and retrieve higher level records is
`described in Kuga et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,280,573, issued
`on Jan. 18, 1994. Each of a plurality of higher level records
`contain different types of information associated with a
`keyword. Such higher level records may contain usage,
`synonym, and meaning information associated with a
`keyword, for example.
`
`Id., 3:14-31.
`
`The ’527 Patent asserts, “[a] problem with prior art multimedia systems is an
`
`inability to search and retrieve multimedia data.” Exhibit 1001, 1:19-21. But this,
`
`too, was well known.
`
`C.
`
`The Prior Art
`
`1.
`
`Jones-Lee
`
`Jones-Lee was published (made available for inspection) on March 23, 1995.
`
`See Exhibit 1002, 1 at “(43)”; Exhibit 1010, 1 at “(41) Open to Public Inspection:
`
`10
`
`

`

`1995-03-23”; Exhibit 1011, 3 (defining “(41) Open to Public Inspection”). Thus,
`
`Jones-Lee is at least 35 U.S.C. §102(b) prior art given it was available to the public
`
`more than one year prior to the alleged priority date of July 8, 1996 for the ’527
`
`Patent. Jones-Lee was not cited on the face of the ’527 Patent.
`
`Jones-Lee relates “to a method of tracking information from media sources.”
`
`Exhibit 1002, 1:1-2. Specifically, it teaches:
`
`collecting a plurality of ‘free’ press media information and
`then selecting clips from this information which relate to
`a desired client. The clips are then reviewed and rated as
`either positive, neutral or negative. At least one media
`market definition area for the clip is determined and
`category information is obtained from the clip. The
`associated client, the rating, the media market definition
`area and the category information for the selected clip can
`be placed into a client file in a database. A client can then
`be selected and data from the database compiled for each
`selected clip which is associated with the selected client
`and one or more selected areas of dominant influence. The
`rating totals can be tallied and the tallies as well as other
`information can be reported to the client.
`
`Id., Abstract.
`
`11
`
`

`

`2. Webster
`
`For Webster, the front page states, “Arthur A. Webster, Coleen T. Jones,
`
`Margaret H. Pinson, Stephen D. Voran, Stephen Wolf, ‘Objective video quality
`
`assessment system based on human perception,’ Proc. SPIE 1913, Human Vision,
`
`Visual Processing,
`
`and Digital Display IV,
`
`(8 September 1993); doi:
`
`10.1117/12.152700 Event:
`
`IS&T/SPIE's Symposium on Electronic Imaging:
`
`Science and Technology, 1993, San Jose, CA, United States.” Exhibit 1003, 1.
`
`Webster has also been cited by others in the field as being presented or publicly
`
`available
`
`in
`
`1993.
`
`http://www2.ene.unb.br/mylene/pubs/2005_farias_ieee_tce.pdf
`
`at
`
`See
`
`[12];
`
`https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/215f/7fcfef9eb0a8930443bed5f241a6d1672765.pd
`
`f at [26]. Thus, Webster is at least 35 U.S.C. §102(b) prior art given it was available
`
`to the public more than one year prior to the alleged priority date of July 8, 1996 for
`
`the ’527 Patent. Webster is not cited on the face of the ’527 Patent.
`
`Webster teaches “a perception-based model that predicts subjective
`
`ratings from these objective measurements, and a demonstration of the correlation
`
`between the model’s predictions and viewer panel ratings.” Exhibit 1003, Abstract.
`
`Specifically, “[a] clip is defined as a test scene pair consisting of the original video
`
`and the degraded video. 9 seconds was allowed to rate the impairment on a 5 point
`
`scale before the next clip was presented. The viewer was asked to rate the difference
`
`12
`
`

`

`between the original video and the degraded video as either (5) Imperceptible, (4)
`
`Perceptible but Not Annoying, (3) Slightly Annoying, (2) Annoying, or (1) Very
`
`Annoying.” Id., 17 (section 2.4: Subjective Testing).
`
`3.
`
`Braden-Harder
`
`Braden-Harder is a European Patent Application Publication that published
`
`on August 10, 1994. Thus, Braden-Harder is at least 35 U.S.C §102(b) prior art.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,630,121 is in the same family as Braden-Harder. U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,630,121 is cited on the face of the ’527 Patent, but it was not used to reject claims.
`
`However, 35 U.S.C. §325(d) is inapplicable because the reference was not applied
`
`against the claims. Exhibit 1008.
`
`Importantly, there is no evidence that the
`
`Examiner considered the specific combination and its particular disclosures outlined
`
`by Petitioners herein. Id. Thus, the prior art presented here is new.
`
`Braden-Harder discloses a “method of archiving and retrieving multimedia
`
`objects on a multipurpose computer by using structured indexes related to a lexical
`
`database.” Exhibit 1004, 2:50-53. Multimedia information, such as audio and video
`
`clips, are presented to a user on a heuristic interface.
`
`Id., 5:13-17, 9:39-41. The
`
`heuristic interface prompts the user to input a description of the multimedia.
`
`Id.,
`
`9:41-43. The heuristic interface may be in the form of a template that “prompts the
`
`user to enter an English natural language description of the multimedia information.”
`
`Id., 10:2-5. Alternatively, the user may input the descriptive information in the form
`
`13
`
`

`

`of a natural language phrase. Id., 10:36-44. A parser is then used to analyze the
`
`national language phrase description and create keywords.
`
`Id., 10:45-11:2. The
`
`output of the parser are components that are mapped, using a mapping algorithm, to
`
`a structured index for the multimedia. Id., 11:4-6. “The mapping algorithm 285 can
`
`also add additional information, such as additional attributes to the parser output,”
`
`including “[h]yponyms, hypernyms, and synonyms[, which] can be added as
`
`attributes . . . by using other databases, like [a] lexical database.” Id., 11:36-38,
`
`11:45-48.
`
`4.
`
`Stolfo
`
`Stolfo is a U.S. Patent. It was filed on June 7, 1995 and issued on September
`
`16, 1997. Thus, Stolfo is at least 35 U.S.C §102(e) prior art. It is not cited on the
`
`face of the ’527 Patent.
`
`Stolfo “relates to the field of automated image processing, image compression
`
`and pattern recognition, as well document-image storage and retrieval, and more
`
`particularly to financial instrument processing to provide efficient storage and
`
`retrieval of check image information.” Exhibit 1005, 1:16-21. Stolfo also discloses
`
`methods of managing databases, and, in particular, “merge/purge techniques to
`
`eliminate redundancies and errors.” Id., 1:24-25. Prior to a merge/purge operation,
`
`Stolfo discloses “pre-processing the records in the database using a thesaurus
`
`14
`
`

`

`database to indicate relatedness,” “increasing the chance of finding two duplicate
`
`records.” Id., 12:43-45, 38:58-60.
`
`5.
`
`Hayashi
`
`Hayashi is a U.S. Patent. It was filed on August 7, 1991, and issued on April
`
`26, 1994. Thus, Hayashi is at least 35 U.S.C §102(b) prior art. It was not cited on
`
`the face of the ’527 Patent.
`
`Hayashi teaches “[a] document processing system for processing documents
`
`by using structured keywords comprises an output system and a receiver system.”
`
`Exhibit 1006, Abstract.
`
`It further teaches “a structured keyword dictionary
`
`containing structured keywords among which relations are systematically structured,
`
`and [a] linkage unit providing linkage information for establishing correspondences
`
`between constituent parts of an input document and corresponding ones of the
`
`keywords.” Id. In particular, Hayashi teaches a structured keyword “implemented
`
`on a knowledge domain basis so as to have at least one of the links including a link
`
`to a keyword representing a higher rank concept, [and] a link to a keyword
`
`representing a lower rank keyword . . ., as is illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3 of
`
`[Hayashi].” Id., 2:20-26.
`
`VII. Claim Construction
`
`Petitioners propose, for purposes of this IPR only, that all claim terms of the
`
`’527 Patent take on their ordinary and customary meaning that the terms would have
`
`15
`
`

`

`to one of ordinary skill in the art—no constructions are necessary. Petitioners’
`
`proposal in this proceeding should not be viewed as a concession as to the proper
`
`scope of any claim term in any litigation nor a waiver of any indefiniteness
`
`arguments.
`
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Petitioners submit that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would
`
`have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science or electrical engineering (or
`
`comparable degree) and two years of experience in databases or networking. Exhibit
`
`1007, ¶22.
`
`IX. CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY
`
`Claims 1-18 are unpatentable as shown in the detailed explanation below.
`
`Exhibit 1007, ¶42.
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-4 are Obvious in view of Jones-Lee and
`Webster.
`
`Jones-Lee and Webster are from the same field of endeavor because they
`
`both relate to assessing the quality of images and other multimedia data and storing
`
`data representing the quality assessment in a database. Exhibit 1002, Abstract, p.
`
`4:34; Exhibit 1003, p. 1; Exhibit 1007, ¶43. Both Jones-Lee and Webster disclose
`
`evaluating multimedia, such as television and developing an indication of the
`
`quality of the content therein. Exhibit 1002, p.3:26-30, 7:4-10; Exhibit 1003,
`
`16
`
`

`

`p. 15; Exhibit 1007, ¶43. Jones-Lee discloses reviewing media information to
`
`apply a rating to the media information as, for example, positive, neutral, or
`
`negative. Exhibit 1002, Abstract; Exhibit 1007, ¶44. Webster also determines
`
`quality, i.e., applying ratings. For example, Webster discloses “an objective video
`
`quality assessment system that emulates human perception.” Exhibit 1003, p. 1;
`
`Exhibit 1007, ¶45. The Webster system automatically evaluates multimedia and
`
`“returns results that agree closely with quality judgements made by a large panel of
`
`viewers.” Exhibit 1003, p. 1; Exhibit 1007, ¶45. Webster “provides broadcasters,
`
`video engineers and standards organizations with the capability for making
`
`meaningful video quality evaluations without convening viewer panels.” Exhibit
`
`1003, p. 1; Exhibit 1007, ¶45. Webster acknowledges that its “principles presented
`
`can be applied to other types of motion video and even still images”—multimedia.
`
`Exhibit 1003, p. 1; Exhibit 1007, ¶45.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would be
`
`motivated to improve on the positive, negative, and neutral rating techniques of
`
`Jones-Lee to include the automated techniques of Webster. Exhibit 1007, ¶46.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Such a system would provide automated quality rating of multimedia, thereby
`
`improving the efficiency the rating system of Jones-Lee. Exhibit 1007, ¶46.
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,212,527 Claim
`Language
`1[a]. A method of
`managing the quality of
`a data collection of
`multimedia data
`comprising:
`
`1[b]. reviewing
`multimedia data
`
`Jones-Lee and Webster et al.
`
`“A method for tracking information comprises the steps
`of collecting a plurality of ‘free’ press media
`information and then selecting clips from this
`information which relate to a desired client. The clips
`are then reviewed and rated as either positive,
`neutral, or negative.” Exhibit 1002, Abstract.
`“The media information which is input comes from
`print and electronic sources and includes editorials,
`news stories, columns and letters to the editor,
`interviews on entertainment shows, radio interviews,
`etc.” Id.
`“The selected clips would involve many types of media
`information from print and electronic source including,
`but not limited to reports, teasers, mentions in stories, a
`television or radio show, editorials, letters to the
`editor, articles, opinion editorials, columns, headlines,
`talk shows, entertainment shows, etc.” Id., 7:4-10.
`
`“A method of tracking information comprising the steps
`of collecting a plurality of media information. The
`media information is called selected clips when the
`clip mentions at least one selected client.” Exhibit
`1002, 4:15-19.
`“These selected clips are then reviewed and identified
`with a particular client from the group of clients” Id.,
`4:19-21.
`“The selected clip is then reviewed in step I6 and it is
`rated as one of positive, neutral or negative.” Id.,
`7:17-18.
`
`18
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No.
`6,212,527 Claim
`Language
`
`Jones-Lee and Webster et al.
`
`Id., Figure 1.
`“Several scenes, exhibiting various amounts of spatial
`and temporal information content, are needed to
`characterize the performance of a video system. Even
`more scenes are needed to guard against viewer
`boredom during the subjective testing. A set of 36 test
`scenes was chosen for the experiment. The test scenes
`spanned a wide range of user applications including still
`scenes, limited motion graphics, and full motion
`entertainment video.” Exhibit 1003, p. 16 (section 2.1:
`Library of test scenes).
`
`19
`
`

`

`Jones-Lee and Webster et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,212,527 Claim
`Language
`1[c]. creating a quality
`event in a catalogue of
`said multimedia data,
`said quality event
`containing information
`regarding the quality of
`data collection;
`
`Exhibit 1002, Figure 1.
`“Each clip is rated as either positive, neutral, or
`negative.” Id., 4:21-22.
`“The selected clip is then reviewed in step 16 and it is
`rated as one of positive, neutral or negative.” Id.,
`7:17-19.
`“Once a rating has been obtained for a clip in step I7,
`then this information is input into the client file in
`the database.” Id., 8:13-15.
`“In order to rate a clip, each paragraph is read. The
`paragraph is indicated as being a ‘+’ for a positive clip,
`‘-‘ for a negative clip and a ‘0’ for a neutral clip.” Id.,
`7:20-23.
`“The method then involves the steps of inputting the
`
`20
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No.
`6,212,527 Claim
`Language
`
`Jones-Lee and Webster et al.
`
`associated client, the rating, the area of dominant
`influence and the category information for each selected
`clip into a client file in a database.” Id., 4:30-34.
`“A set of video scene pairs (each consisting of the
`original and a degraded version) was used in a
`subjective test. The scene pairs were also processed on
`a computer that extracted a large number of features.
`Statistical analysis was used to select an optimal set of
`quality parameters (obtained from features) that
`correlated well with the viewing panel results. This
`optimal set of parameters was then used to develop a
`quality assessment algorithm that gives results that
`agree closely with viewing panel results.” Exhibit 1003,
`p. 16 (section 2: Development Methodology); Fig. 1.
`“A clip is defined as a test scene pair consisting of the
`original video and the degraded video. 9 seconds was
`allowed to rate the impairment on a 5 point scale before
`the next clip was presented. The viewer was asked to
`rate the difference between the original video and the
`degraded video as either (5) Imperceptible, (4)
`Perceptible but Not Annoying, (3) Slightly
`Annoying, (2) Annoying, or (1) Very Annoying.” Id.,
`p. 17 (section 2.4: Subjective Testing).
`“For in-service measurements, the PC’s will calculate
`the [Spatial Information] and [Temporal Information]
`features at or near real time for both the source and
`destination video. Although Figure 7 shows only the
`PC at the destination end calculating the m1, m2, and
`m3 quality measures, the system is, in fact, symmetrical
`so that the quality measurements are available at
`either the source or the destination end. The SI and
`TI features can be time tagged. This is particularly
`useful for calculating the video delay of the
`transmission channel, since the SI and TI features can
`be time-aligned with a simple correlation process. Once
`
`21
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No.
`6,212,527 Claim
`Language
`
`1[d]. associating said
`quality event with an
`input data portion of
`said multimedia data.
`
`Jones-Lee and Webster et al.
`
`both the source and destination measurements are
`available at one PC, they can be combined in the linear
`predictor described previously to produce the estimated
`subject rating of the live video.” Id., pp. 24-25 (Real
`Time Implementation).
`“The clip is then categorized to obtain category
`information. Such category information could include
`subject of the 30 selected clip and media source, for
`example. The method then involves the steps of
`inputting the associated client, the rating, the area of
`dominant influence and the category information for
`each selected clip into a client file in a database.”
`Ex