`
`v.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`IPR2019-01367 (Patent 8,407,609)
`
`Uniloc’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Before Charles J. Boudreau, Daniel J. Galligan, & Juliet Mitchell Dirba,
`
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`December 3, 2020
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`
`L‘WYM
`III IIIII IIII
`
`.; United States Patent
`Thur
`SI SIS")! \‘l!w‘nm FDR mum.
`\‘II 'luIIViWI lunlwunywm:
`.\\D\ llllu Pukhlllnfll \l\ \
`( ("Willanu
`in u
`IMKJ-I Nu— .DMLIM
`
`~
`
`US ”07.699 B:
`-|In Punt Nm:
`Mar. 26. 2013
`aw Dale ot Punt:
`I'M VIII-ll human-n um.
`VIr.
`TI! T.“ 13,114. V1I.
`, 1‘7"
`20K.
`
`‘01:”.2}:
`m qua.- m l: mu"..- m u",
`an...“ I...
`
`m)
`
`I;
`
`n 1; .Wlaim
`_
`‘
`n...“ mum-nu Una mun-"u...
`..u m... u
`. an».- a...“
`
`w. 4'“...
`‘
`WW I... m
`“mun
` -')
`
`m ”I...“ I...
`A nth-I mm...
`mun. Mum "“qu
`“Imp-.1... ..mp...-
`.\.I...Imn.m_. m
`|“-‘l““’5“"'- U
`R-
`I:MIK1‘"\\I rum-u .mum A
`-
`rm. "and" Jun-1...... II .-
`.m.
`
`
`mu, .m- uni-zinc “1.“qu .m. .Ilu. Ila-m
`Autumnal-unnum-
`an mum mmra.m(m~om1mauu mum
`Mu. Ann:IoumnuIn-vuwunlu-qmln
`,,
`|
`_
`“
`
`:Ҥ;"""
`"" ""‘”""“"“‘""
`um. my...
`lulu-xuufivylmdlnllsh-u:
`
`
`a“, a,
`mm,”
`mm max-u... . luau-ml u I. u. Ina-1d»-
`(yarn/M
`[mun
`mun-.mnmmfihmu
`:zmsm-«mm mm
`uu-nmmmum.
`«: mu
`"swo- 1|\“II,‘I:\7:I vrwtr
`
`“'
`
`Inventor:
`
`Tod C. Turner
`
`Assignee:
`
`LINQware Inc.
`
`FIling Date:
`
`August 21, 2009
`
`Provisional Date: August 21 , 2008
`
`
`
`NETFLIX. INC. EXHIBIT IDOI
`
`Ex. 1001. Cover.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’609 Patent
`
`1. A method for tracking digital media presentations delivered from a first computer system to a user’s
`computer via a network comprising:
`[a] providing a corresponding web page to the user’s computer for each digital media presentation to be
`delivered using the first computer system;
`[b] providing identifier data to the user’s computer using the first computer system;
`[c] providing an applet to the user’s computer for each digital media presentation to be delivered using the
`first computer system, wherein the applet is operative by the user’s computer as a timer;
`[d] receiving at least a portion of the identifier data from the user’s computer responsively to the timer
`applet each time a predetermined temporal period elapses using the first computer system; and
`[e] storing data indicative of the received at least portion of the identifier data using the first computer
`system;
`[f] wherein each provided webpage causes corresponding digital media presentation data to be streamed
`from a second computer system distinct from the first computer system directly to the user’s computer
`independent of the first computer system;
`[g] wherein the stored data is indicative of an amount of time the digital media presentation data is
`streamed from the second computer system to the user’s computer; and
`[h] wherein each stored data is together indicative of a cumulative time the corresponding web page was
`displayed by the user’s computer.
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:17-45.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`3
`
`
`
`Asserted Grounds
`
`Challenged
`Claims
`
`Section
`
`References
`
`1-3
`
`1-3
`
`Pre-AIA § 103(a)
`
`Jacoby (Ex. 1006) in view of
`
`Bland (Ex. 1009)
`
`Pre-AIA § 103(a)
`
`Mcternan (Ex. 1007) in view of
`
`Robinson (Ex. 1008)
`
`Pet. at 2; Inst. Dec. at 3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`4
`
`
`
`“Computer System” Requires No Construction
`
`The Court agrees with Uniloc that the
`specification’s statement that a computer system
`“as used herein may generally take the form of
`… collections of computing devices having a
`common operator or under common control is
`not definitional. The phrase “may generally”
`does not reflect an intent by the patent applicant
`to definitively limit the meaning of the term
`“computer system.”….The Court does not
`construe the term “computer system” at this
`time.
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:52-55.
`
`Ex. 2001 at 14-15.
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:52-55; Ex. 2001 at 14-15; Resp. at 14-15; POSR at 1-3; see also Inst. Dec. at 8.DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`
`
`Providing an Applet Step
`
`[c] providing an applet to the user’s computer for each digital media presentation
`to be delivered using the first computer system, wherein the applet is operative by
`the user’s computer as a timer;
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:17-45.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`6
`
`
`
`Jacoby Fails to Disclose Providing an Applet
`
`Inst. Dec. at 31-33; Resp. at 15-16; POSR at 3-4.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`7
`
`
`
`Bland Fails to Disclose Providing an Applet
`
`Uniloc ignores the actual mapping in the
`Petition, which points to either Jacoby or the
`Jacoby-Bland combination for this feature.
`
`Reply at 18.
`
`Reply at 18; POSR at 5.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`8
`
`
`
`Jacoby
`
`Ex. 1006, ¶29; Resp. at 20-21; POSR at 7-8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`9
`
`
`
`Element 1[f]
`
`[f] wherein each provided webpage causes corresponding digital media presentation
`data to be streamed from a second computer system distinct from the first
`computer system directly to the user’s computer independent of the first computer
`system;
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:17-45.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`10
`
`
`
`Element 1[g]
`
`[g] wherein the stored data is indicative of an amount of time the digital media
`presentation data is streamed from the second computer system to the user’s
`computer; and
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:17-45.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`11
`
`
`
`McTernan
`
`Ex. 1007 at 11:4-6; POSR at 14.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`12
`
`
`
`Prohibition Against Hindsight Intact Post-KSR
`
`• Pre-AIA § 103—”at the time the invention was made”
`• MPEP §2141.01(III)—”[t]he requirement ‘at the time the
`invention was made’ is to avoid impermissible hindsight.”
`• KSR, 550 U.S. 398—”distortion caused by hindsight bias and
`must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post
`reasoning.
`• Post KSR cases continue to apply hindsight
`
`POSR at 8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`13
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine in the Particular “Manner Claimed”
`
`The Federal Circuit has, therefore, consistently held that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art must not only have had some
`motivation to combine the prior art teachings, but some
`motivation to combine the prior art teachings in the particular
`manner claimed. See, e.g., In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1371
`(Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Particular findings must be made as to the
`reason the skilled artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed
`invention, would have selected these components for
`combination in the manner claimed.”)
`
`Resp. at 37-38; POSR at 18-19.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`14
`
`