Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 9
`
` Filed: July 16, 2019
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MV3 PARTNERS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and CHRISTOPHER M.
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Unified Patents, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Unified”) filed a Petition
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1–6, 8, 10–21, 23–38, 40, 42–53,
`and 55–61 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,863,223 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’223 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Petitioner filed a
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger (Ex. 1003) with its Petition. MV3
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 1
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 9
`
` Filed: July 16, 2019
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MV3 PARTNERS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and CHRISTOPHER M.
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Unified Patents, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Unified”) filed a Petition
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1–6, 8, 10–21, 23–38, 40, 42–53,
`and 55–61 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,863,223 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’223 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Petitioner filed a
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger (Ex. 1003) with its Petition. MV3
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`Partners, LLC (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). Patent Owner filed a Declaration of Dan Schonfeld,
`Ph.D. (Ex. 2001) with its Preliminary response. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`42.4(a), we have the authority to determine whether to institute review.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” On April 24, 2018, the
`Supreme Court held that, under 35 U.S.C. § 314, we may not institute
`review of fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v.
`Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). For the reasons expressed below,
`we determine that, on this record, Petitioner has established a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged
`claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged
`claims on all grounds of unpatentability presented.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’223 patent is involved in MV3 Partners
`LLC v. Roku, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:18-cv-00308 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 16,
`2018); MV3 Partners LLC v. Kohl’s Corp., Civil Action No. 6:18-cv-00373
`(W.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2018); and MV3 Partners LLC v. Best Buy Co., Civil
`Action No. 6:18-cv-00374 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2018). Pet. 66; Paper 4, 2.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`
`B. The ’223 Patent
`The ’223 patent relates to a mobile set top box (“STB”) for
`forwarding and presenting on a large screen of an external display (e.g.,
`HDTV monitor) multimedia content including packets using predefined
`protocols (e.g., MPEG, IP) transmitted from various networks (e.g., 3G,
`satellite) via unicast or multicast broadcasts to a small screen of an
`authenticated user’s mobile computing device. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:11–13,
`2:58–61, 3:39–41, 4:5–8, 4:56–66, 5:15–17, 6:11–12. Figure 2 below is
`illustrative.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2, reproduced above, depicts mobile STB (10) facilitating the
`display in standard television (14) of data broadcast in unicast or multicast to
`mobile computing device (20). Id. at 4:47–51.
`In particular, as shown in Figure 2 above, the ’223 patent describes
`that mobile device (20) provides received multimedia content to mobile STB
`(10) via a docking port of docking station (22). Id. at 4:47–60. Upon
`determining the native size format of the multimedia content received from
`mobile device (20), mobile STB (10) determines the size format capable of
`
` 4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`being displayed by external display (14), and upconverts the multimedia
`content from a small size format to a larger size format for display on
`external display (14). Id. at 4:15–27, 33–39, 5:35–43.
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 30, and 32 are independent.
`Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below with disputed limitations
`emphasized:
`1. A mobile set top box comprising:
` a docking port configured to accept a mobile computing
`device that has a native resolution of a first size format and
`receives media content from at least two different types of
`communications networks;
`a mobile device input that receives media content from the
`mobile computing device accepted in the docking port;
`
`a television signal input that receives at least one type of
`television signal;
`a video processor configured to receive and process the
`media content from the mobile device input, the video processor
`including adaptive circuitry to process the media content
`transmitted from unicast and multicast broadcasts, and the video
`processor including circuitry and instructions operable to process
`a predefined protocol stack of video packets forming at least a
`portion of the media content;
`a processor coupled to an electronic storage, the electronic
`storage comprising instructions that, when executed, cause the
`processor to:
`execute an upconversion process by processing first media
`content from the mobile computing device, wherein the first
`media content
`includes digital video
`image
`information
`comprising a series of digital video frames, and is modified for
`display on a display device that is separate from the mobile set
`top box, the display device having a native display resolution of
`
` 5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`
`a second size format that is larger than the first size format of the
`mobile computing device, the upconversion process further
`comprising:
`receiving the first media content in the first size format
`from the mobile device input,
`querying the mobile computing device to determine the
`first size format,
`querying the display device,
`determining the native display resolution of the second
`size format of the display device based on a response resulting
`from the query of the display device,
`authenticating the validity of a user associated with the
`mobile computing device,
`determining, based on the validity of the user, that the
`received first media content is permitted to be provided to the
`display device, and
`upscaling the received first media content from the first
`size format to the second size format to generate upconverted
`first media content, wherein upscaling includes increasing a total
`number of horizontal and vertical pixels in each video frame of
`the series of digital video frames so that pixel dimensions in each
`video frame match the native display resolution of the second
`size format of the display device; and
`render a television signal into second media content for
`display on the display device, comprising:
`receiving the television signal from the television input;
`decoding the television signal into second media content;
`
`and
`
`rendering the second media content based on the native
`display resolution of the display device to generate rendered
`second media content; and
`an output configured to deliver the upconverted first media
`content and the rendered second media content from the mobile
`set top box to the display device.
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:9–9:3.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–6, 8, 10–21, 23–38, 40, 42–53, and
`55–61 are unpatentable under § 103(a)1 as obvious over Wang.2 Pet. 5.
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–6, 8, 10–21, 23–38, 40, 42–53, and
`55–61 are unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
`Wang, Balram,3 and Bennett.4 Id.
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. Claim Construction
` Because this inter partes review is based on a petition filed after
`November 13, 2018,5 we construe each claim “in accordance with the
`ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
`
`
`1 Because the claims at issue have an effective filing date prior to
`March 16, 2013, the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
`Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), we apply the pre-AIA
`version of 35 U.S.C. § 103 in this Decision.
`2 Wang et al. (US 7,957,733 B2, filed May 22, 2007, iss. June 7, 2011)
`(“Wang”) (Ex. 1004).
`3 Balram (US 2008/0198264 A1, filed Feb. 19, 2008, pub. Aug. 21, 2008)
`(“Balram”) (Ex. 1006).
`4 Bennett et al. (US 2006/0031889 A1, filed Oct. 11, 2005, iss. Feb. 9, 2006)
`(“Bennett”) (Ex. 1005).
`5 On October 11, 2018, the USPTO revised its rules to harmonize the
`Board’s claim construction standard with that used in federal district
`court. CHANGES TO THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARD FOR
`INTERPRETING CLAIMS IN TRIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
`AND APPEAL BOARD, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018). This rule change
`applies to petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the
`patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Accordingly, our interpretation of the
`claims is similar to that of a district court. See id. Under the standard
`applied by district courts, claim terms are generally given their plain and
`ordinary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`(en banc). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a
`patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when
`the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the
`specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am.
`LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes any express
`construction for any of the terms in the challenged claims of the ’223 patent.
`Pet. 5; Prelim. Resp. 9. We determine that no explicit construction of any
`term is necessary to resolve the issues before us at this stage of the
`proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe
`terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy,’ . . . we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] . . .
`where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citations
`omitted)).
`
` 8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(internal quotation and citation omitted). In that regard, Petitioner’s
`Declarant, Anthony Wechselberger, testifies that a person with ordinary skill
`in the art at the time of the invention
`would have been a person having . . . : (i) at least an
`undergraduate degree
`in electrical engineering, computer
`science, computer engineering, or a similar technical field; and
`(ii) two years of experience in analysis, design, or development
`related to digital video processing systems, distribution networks
`and communications protocols, and signal formatting, with
`additional education substituting for less experience and vice
`versa.
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 31. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s suggested level
`for the ordinarily skilled artisan in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp.
`8.
`
`On this record, we observe that Petitioner’s proffered undisputed
`assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent
`with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as
`reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Therefore, for purposes of this
`Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`
`C. Obviousness over Wang
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–6, 8, 10–21, 23–38, 40, 42–53, and
`55–61 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Wang.
`Pet. 11–63. Patent Owner opposes. Prelim. Resp. 27–35.
`Based on the evidence in this record, we determine that Petitioner has
`established that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail
`with respect to this ground of unpatentability. In our discussion below, we
`address the parties’ contentions in turn.
`
`1.
`Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`of skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
`considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`We also recognize that prior art references must be “‘considered together
`with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.’” In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting In re Samour, 571
`F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)). We analyze Petitioner’s obviousness grounds
`with the principles identified above in mind.
`
`10
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`
`2.
`Overview of Wang
`Wang describes a method and system for displaying on an external
`large screen display multimedia content originally destined for the smaller
`screen of a mobile terminal display. Ex. 1004, 3:21–32. In particular, Wang
`describes a set top box, upon receiving the multimedia content from the
`mobile computing device, converting the multimedia data to suit the format
`size of the larger external display. Id. at 14:43–49, 26:10–17. As shown in
`Figure 9 below, Wang discloses mobile terminal signal conversion module
`(MTSCM) 912, upon receiving multimedia content transmitted to mobile
`device (908) by service providers (902) through network (904), reformats
`the multimedia content to display it on external display system (914). Id. at
`14:50–15:3, 15:19–31, 15:52–55, 15:65–16:2, 18:32–37. Wang discloses
`upconverting the signal from mobile device (908) for display to larger
`external device (914). Id. at 17:43–54, 17:63–18:6. Wang describes that
`multimedia data are broadcast to the mobile device via multicast and unicast.
`Id. at 8:45–48, 19:46–49. Figure 9 of Wang, reproduced below, is a
`depiction of a mobile terminal signal conversion system.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 9, reproduced above, depicts a system with mobile terminal signal
`conversion. Ex. 1004, 14:43–49.
`
`
`3.
`Obviousness Analysis
`Petitioner provides explanations to account for all of the claim
`limitations required by claims 1–6, 8, 10–21, 23–38, 40, 42–53, and 55–61,
`and reasons for modifying the teachings of Wang, citing Mr.
`Wechselberger’s Declaration for support. Pet. 11–47; Ex. 1003.
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`
`a. Claim 1
`Independent claim 1 recites, “[a] mobile set top box comprising.” Ex.
`1001, 8:9. Petitioner contends Wang’s disclosure of MTSCM (912)
`contained within housing (910), collectively teaches the “mobile set top
`box.” Pet. 11. According to Petitioner, because the disclosed set top box
`(MTSCM(912)/housing (910) unit) serves as an intermediate device to
`convert a signal received from mobile device (908) to a signal that can be
`displayed to external device (914), Wang’s MTSCM contained in the
`housing teaches the claimed “mobile set top box.” Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex.
`1003
`¶ 47; Ex. 1004 15:19–21, 15:39–41, 26:10–17).
`Independent claim 1 further recites:
`a docking port configured to accept a mobile computing
`device that has a native resolution of a first size format and
`receives media content from at least two different types of
`communications networks.
`Ex. 1001, 8:10–13.
`Petitioner contends Wang explicitly discloses “the MTSCM may be
`provided in a ‘set top box’ and the mobile device may be accepted into a
`‘seat’ (i.e., ‘docking port’) to directly connect . . . to the MTSCM box.” Pet.
`12 (citing Ex. 1004, 26:10–17, 15:44–46). Further, Petitioner contends that
`Wang’s disclosure of a cellular phone (i.e., “mobile computing device”) that
`receives media content from various providers including 3G or 4G cellular
`networks teaches the computing network receiving media content from at
`least two types of communication networks. Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1004,
`
`13
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`14:50–15:9; Ex. 1003 ¶ 49). Further, Petitioner contends that Wang’s
`disclosure of the mobile device receiving multimedia content intended for
`display on a small screen teaches the mobile device’s native resolution
`referenced as the mobile device’s screen size in the ’223 patent. Id. at 14
`(citing Ex. 1004, 14:54–55, 15:15–18; Ex. 1001, 4:21–27). Therefore,
`Petitioner concludes that a PHOSITA6 would have understood that,
`“consistent with the ’223 Patent, Wang’s cellular phone has a native
`resolution of a first size format based on the cellular phone’s small screen
`size, and . . . this size format would have been smaller than the native
`resolution of the second size format of the larger external display device.”
`Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 53).
`Independent claim 1 further recites, “a mobile device input that
`receives media content from the mobile computing device accepted in the
`docking port.” Ex. 1001, 8:14–15. Petitioner contends that Wang’s
`disclosure of mobile terminal signal interface module (1002) using a
`conventional physical interface to connect the MTSCM and the mobile
`device teaches the “mobile device input” because module 1002
`accommodates receiving a multimedia signal from the mobile device. Pet.
`15 (citing Ex. 1004, 16:46–50; Ex. 1004 ¶ 61).
`Independent claim 1 further recites, “a television signal input that
`receives at least one type of television signal.” Ex. 1001, 8:16–17.
`
`
`6 A person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`14
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`Petitioner contends that Wang’s disclosure of implementing the MTSCM in
`a set top box for a television teaches the television signal input. Pet. 16
`(citing Ex. 1004, 26:10–17). According to Petitioner, “[a] PHOSITA would
`have understood that a television STB includes a television signal input
`that receives at least one type of television signal.” Id. (citing Ex.
`1003 ¶¶ 74–77). Further, Petitioner contends that, because a television
`signal input is a standard feature in common STBs, a PHOSITA would have
`understood Wang’s STB to include, at a minimum, a television signal input
`to provide television content from a cable or satellite provider. Id. at 16–17
`(citing Ex. 1001, 1:20–28). Furthermore, Petitioner contends that Wang’s
`disclosure of using a button of the STB to select a predetermined “tunable
`channel” for routing media content teaches that the disclosed STB includes a
`television signal input for receiving standard television programming. Id. at
`17–18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 74–77).
`Independent claim 1 further recites:
` a video processor configured to receive and process the
`media content from the mobile device input, the video processor
`including adaptive circuitry to process the media content
`transmitted from unicast and multicast broadcasts, and the video
`processor including circuitry and instructions operable to process
`a predefined protocol stack of video packets forming at least a
`portion of the media content.
`Ex. 1001, 8:18–25.
`Petitioner contends that Wang’s disclosure of the MTSCM processing media
`content received from the mobile phone to provide a converted video signal
`to an external device teaches the claimed “video processor.” Pet. 18–19
`
`15
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`(citing Ex. 1004, 15:65–16:4). In particular, Petitioner contends that
`because the MTSCM utilizes video signal conversion module (1004)
`including Video Compress Decoder (1104a) that receives and decompresses
`the multimedia stream, the Video Compress Decoder teaches the “video
`processor.” Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1004, 17:43–46; Ex. 1003 ¶ 54).
`Further, Petitioner contends that Wang’s disclosure of the MTSCM
`processing media content broadcast to multiple users including the mobile
`terminal with a shared IP address teaches receiving the media content
`transmitted to the mobile device via multicast. Id. at 20–21 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 40, 55, 56; Ex. 1004, 5:41–47, 8:45–48). Furthermore, Petitioner
`contends that Wang’s disclosure of the MTSCM processing media content
`streamed on-demand to a single user (e.g., the mobile terminal with a unique
`IP address) teaches receiving the media content transmitted to the mobile
`device via unicast. Id. at 20–21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 40, 55, 56; Ex. 1004,
`1:51–54, 19:46–49, 28:48–62). Consequently, Petitioner submits that a
`PHOSITA would have understood that the multimedia content received by
`Wang’s “MTSCM[] video processor via the user’s cellular phone in Wang
`includes content transmitted via unicast and multicast broadcasts, and
`Wang’s video processor includes adaptive circuitry[7] to process this
`received content.” Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 55–56). Additionally,
`
`
`7 “The circuitry is adaptive in many respects, including its ability to process
`different compression formats (e.g., different MPEG formats) and a host of
`other variations in the received multimedia signal to which the video
`processor would adapt.” Pet. 21–22 n.8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 56).
`
`16
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`Petitioner contends that Wang’s disclosure of the mobile device receiving a
`multimedia data stream in “real time” from the Internet using 3G or 4G
`cellular technology via an interface/buffer and using MPEG video
`compression format (e.g., MPEG1, MPEG2, or MPEG4) teaches the video
`processor including circuitry and instructions to process a predefined
`protocol stack of video packets included in the media content. Id. at 22.
`According to Petitioner, “[b]ecause MPEG formatted data streams are
`packetized for transport, and also because Internet-sourced content uses IP
`packets to transport data, a PHOSITA would have understood that Wang’s
`real time ‘multimedia data stream’ (see Fig. 9) would have comprised video
`packets.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 57). Further, Petitioner contends the ’223
`patent illustrates a “predefined protocol stack of video packets” as a mere
`grouping of “MPEG” and “IP” protocols. Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:9–
`13). Therefore, Petitioner submits the following:
`Because Wang similarly uses MPEG and IP for receiving
`packetized MPEG video streams, including those received from
`the Internet, a PHOSITA thus would have understood or at least
`found obvious that such packetized MPEG video streams were
`“a predefined protocol stack of video packets forming at least a
`portion of the media content,” and the video processor would
`have instructions for processing it.
`Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58; Ex. 1004, 17:34–54).
`Independent claim 1 further recites:
`a processor coupled to an electronic storage, the electronic
`storage comprising instructions that, when executed, cause the
`processor to:
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`
`execute an upconversion process by processing first media
`content from the mobile computing device, wherein the first
`media content
`includes digital video
`image
`information
`comprising a series of digital video frames, and is modified for
`display on a display device that is separate from the mobile set
`top box, the display device having a native display resolution of
`a second size format that is larger than the first size format of the
`mobile computing device, the upconversion process further
`comprising.
`Ex. 1001, 8:26–38.
` Petitioner contends Wang’s disclosure of a separate “video card” having
`embodied therein Digital/Analog Video Encoder (DAVE) or Digital/Digital
`Video Encoder (DDVE) functionality would need its own graphic processor
`in addition to the Video Compress Decoder (i.e., video processor) that
`decompresses a digital multimedia signal received by the mobile device, and
`thereby teaches the claimed “processor.” Pet. 23–26 (citing Ex. 1004,
`17:63–18:6). Further, Petitioner contends that Wang’s disclosure of an
`external display that overcomes the limited size and capability of the screen
`on mobile devices to display high-resolution graphics and high quality real-
`time audio/video teaches the claimed upconversion process. Id. at 26–27
`(citing Ex. 1004, 2:41–58, 14:54–63, 15:15–18). In particular, Petitioner
`contends that a PHOSITA would have understood Wang’s description of a
`mobile terminal signal, which is forwarded to the larger external display to
`allow users to view video conferences, HDTV, games, GPS information, and
`video on demand, as teaching the upconversion. Id. at 27–28 (citing Ex.
`1003 ¶¶ 65–68, Ex 1004, 15:10–13, 18:9–10, 19:46–49, 21:45–49, 26:52–
`
`
`18
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`55). According to Petitioner, Wang’s disclosure of the MTSCM that
`converts the display signal intended for reproduction by the mobile device to
`a display format and/or signal power level appropriate for display on the
`larger external screen teaches the upconversion. Id. at 28–29 (citing Ex.
`1004, 15:29–31, 15:40–42, 15:55–58, 16:64–67, 17:63–18:17). Therefore,
`Petitioner submits the following:
`Because video content is received in a format intended for the
`cellular phone’s smaller screen size (i.e., a first size format) and
`the MTSCM converts the video content to a different display
`format appropriate for an external display that is larger (i.e., a
`second size format), a PHOSITA would have understood that
`Wang teaches that the MTSCM performs an “upconversion
`process” in which the video content received from the mobile
`device is “modified for display on a display device that is
`separate from the mobile STB, the display device having a native
`display resolution of a second size format that is larger than the
`first size format of the mobile computing device.”
`Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–64).
`
`A PHOSITA would have understood that the multimedia
`data stream received by the MTSCM from the cellular phone
`would have
`included “digital video
`image
`information
`comprising a series of digital video frames,” at least because
`Wang teaches that the content may be MPEG video, which would
`be understood to comprise digital video frames.
`Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 61; Ex. 1004, 17:34–54).
`Independent claim 1 further recites, “receiving the first media content
`in the first size format from the mobile device input.” Ex. 1001, 8:39–40.
`Petitioner contends that Wang’s disclosure of the MTSCM receiving
`multimedia content from the mobile device having a screen with a native
`
`19
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`resolution of a first format teaches the cited claim limitation. Pet. 33 (citing
`Ex. 1004, 15:29–31).
`Independent claim 1 further recites, “querying the mobile computing
`device to determine the first size format.” Ex. 1001, 8:41–42. Petitioner
`contends that the ’223 patent does not describe any specific query, but
`merely determines the size format of the content received by the set top box
`from the mobile device. Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:15–17, 5:35–36).
`Petitioner submits that Wang’s MTSCM similarly determines the size format
`of the media content received from the cellular phone in a format configured
`for the cellular phone’s screen. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 15:29–31, 15:40–42,
`16:53–58). Accordingly, Petitioner submits:
`Because Wang recognizes the received multimedia signal
`format, and that received format is in the first size format of the
`cellular phone screen, Wang teaches that the STB can determine
`the first size format (i.e., of the cellular phone screen) from the
`received signal itself—just like the ’232 Patent. Wang, therefore,
`teaches or at least renders obvious “querying” the mobile device
`to the same extent taught by the ’232 [patent] specification.
`Id. at 34–35 (citation omitted).
`A PHOSITA would have recognized that the first size format
`must be determined to upconvert to the second size format, and
`the particular way of determining the first size format would have
`simply been a mere design choice from a finite number of
`options: the size format could be determined from the received
`signal itself or an initial message could be sent to the device.
`Thus, at a minimum, it would have been “obvious to try” a
`“query” in which an initial message is sent.
`Id. at 35 (citation omitted).
`
`
`20
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 20
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`
`Therefore, Petitioner submits, to the extent the “querying” requires the
`STB sending an initial message to the mobile device, Wang alone teaches, or
`at least suggests, the claim limitation. Id.
`Independent claim 1 further recites, “querying the display device” and
`“determining the native display resolution of the second size format of the
`display device based on a response resulting from the query of the display
`device.” Ex. 1001, 8:43–46. Petitioner contends that Wang’s disclosure of
`the MTSCM outputting a converted signal to an external display via HDMI
`teaches that the MTSCM queried the HDMI display to determine its required
`resolution through a response provided to the MTSCM. Pet. 38 (citing Ex.
`1003 ¶¶ 69–70; Ex. 1004, 18:9–10, 21:45–49, 26:52–55). According to
`Petitioner,
`A PHOSITA would have understood that to perform the
`upconversion process described for Wang’s MTSCM, it would
`need to determine the size format of the external device. It would
`have been obvious to a PHOSITA this format determination
`would typically be made through known querying processes.
`Such a known querying process was already included in the
`HDMI standard.
`Id. at 37 (citations omitted).
`Independent claim 1 further recites “authenticating the validity of a
`user associated with the mobile computing device” and “determining, based
`on the validity of the user, that the received first media content is permitted
`to be provided to the display device.” Ex. 1001, 8:47–51. Petitioner
`contends that the ’223 patent indicates that the mobile STB is capable of
`“authenticating a user so that the user can receive media service.” Pet. 39
`
`21
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX 2030 Page 21
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00474
`Patent 8,863,223 B2
`
`(citing Ex. 1001, 3:11–13, 6:11–12). Likewise, Petitioner contends that
`Wang’s disclosure of authenticating a user during a purchase request (e.g.,
`using a mobile device to download media content from the Internet) based
`upon a mobile device Tag ID and password associated with the user to
`validate the user teaches or suggests the cited claim limitation. Id. at 39–40
`(citing 10:31–11:27, 27:48–28:10). According to Petitioner, although
`Wang’s disclosed authentication serves to authenticate the user, and does not
`address the access rights of the individual, Wang, nonetheless, teaches using
`the authentication information “to access an online account.” Id.
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
