`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`Patent No. 8,407,609 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`C.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`THE COMBINATION OF DAVIS AND CHOI RENDER ALL
`CLAIMS OBVIOUS (GROUND I) ............................................................... 1
`A.
`The Petition Demonstrated that Davis as Modified by Choi
`Rendered the “Receiving” Step Obvious ............................................. 2
`B. None of Uniloc’s Arguments Undermine the Showing in the
`Petition .................................................................................................. 6
`III. THE COMBINATION OF SILER AND DAVIS RENDER ALL
`CLAIMS OBVIOUS (GROUND II) ............................................................ 13
`A.
`The Petition Demonstrated that Siler as Modified by Davis
`Rendered the “Receiving” Step Obvious ........................................... 14
`B. None of Uniloc’s Arguments Undermine the Showing in the
`Petition ................................................................................................ 16
`The Petition Demonstrated that Siler as Modified by Davis
`Rendered the “Wherein Each Provided Webpage . . .” Element
`Obvious .............................................................................................. 19
`D. None of Uniloc’s Arguments Undermine the Showing in the
`Petition ................................................................................................ 22
`IV. UNILOC MAKES NO ARGUMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE
`DEPENDENT CLAIMS ............................................................................... 26
`V. APJS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPOINTED PRIN-
`CIPAL OFFICERS ....................................................................................... 26
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 27
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`ORIGINAL EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609 B2 to Turner et al. (“’609 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002 Declaration of Michael Franz, Ph.D. (“Franz”)
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1003 U.S. Patent No. 5,796,952 (“Davis”)
`
`Ex. 1004 U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2003/0236905 A1 (“Choi”)
`
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2004/0133467 A1 (“Siler”)
`
`Ex. 1006 Affidavit of Matthew C. Bernstein in Support of Petitioners’
`Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission Under 37 C.F.R.
`§42.10(c)
`
`10
`
`Ex. 1007 Non-Exclusive Patent License and Settlement Agreement
`(CONFIDENTIAL - FOR FILING PARTY AND BOARD ONLY)
`
`NEW EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Excerpts of Uniloc’s Final Infringement Contentions Against Netflix
`
`15
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Michael Franz, Ph.D.
`(“Franz Supplement”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner challenged the invalidity of claims 1-3 of the ’609 patent on two
`
`grounds : obviousness based on Davis and Choi; and obviousness based on Siler
`
`and Davis. (See Petition, Paper 1). Petitioner supported its positions with the
`
`5
`
`expert declaration of Dr. Michael Franz (Ex. 1002) (“Franz”). In its Patent Owner
`
`Response (Paper 15) (“POR”), Uniloc levies numerous attacks on both grounds of
`
`invalidity, most based on ignoring the evidence of the well-reasoned motivations to
`
`combine explained in detail in the Petition and the supporting declaration.
`
`Tellingly, Uniloc did not submit an expert declaration in support of its arguments,
`
`10
`
`leaving Dr. Franz’s expert opinions unrebutted. None of Uniloc’s arguments in
`
`any way undermine the overwhelming showing of invalidity set forth in the
`
`Petition, and Petitioner therefore asks the Board find that Netflix has proven by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-3 are invalid.
`
`15
`
`II. THE COMBINATION OF DAVIS AND CHOI RENDER ALL
`
`CLAIMS OBVIOUS (GROUND I)
`Uniloc’s arguments against the Davis and Choi ground focuses on a single
`
`claim limitation of claim 1: “receiving at least a portion of the identifier data from
`
`the user’s computer responsively to the timer applet each time a predetermined
`
`temporal time period elapses using the first computer system.” For the reasons
`
`20
`
`discussed below, none of the attacks lodged by Uniloc with respect to this claim
`
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`limitation undermine the showing in the Petition that the combination of Davis and
`
`Choi renders claim 1 obvious.
`
`For the Board’s convenience, a summary of Netflix’s and Dr. Franz’s
`
`arguments and evidence from the Petition is first summarized (§ II.A below), and
`
`5
`
`then Uniloc’s arguments are addressed (§ II.B below).
`
`A. The Petition Demonstrated that Davis as Modified by Choi
`Rendered the “Receiving” Step Obvious.
`As explained in the Petition, Davis disclosed all aspects of this claim
`
`element other than that Davis’s applet operated according to a predetermined
`
`10
`
`temporal period. Petition at 27-31. And operation of Davis’s applet according to a
`
`predetermined temporal period was an obvious modification of Davis based on the
`
`teaching of Choi. Id.
`
`Davis disclosed that Server B, part of the first computer system, received
`
`information from the client, the user’s computer, as part of “CGI Script 2,”
`
`15
`
`highlighted in Davis’s Figure 4 below. The tracking program started a timer when
`
`the web page was first displayed on the client, and then terminated execution when
`
`the web page was no longer displayed. Davis at 12:22-33. The client then invoked
`
`CGI Script 2, providing to Server B “any information tracked and transmitted by
`
`the applet as well as any available information in the HTTP request header.” Id.
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`at 12:33-39; see also id. at 9:35-38 (emphasis added). The HTTP request header
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`would include the client ID. Id. at 11:59-12:4; Franz ¶¶132-134.
`
`
`
`Davis at Fig. 4 (annotated).
`
`5
`
`Thus, Davis disclosed that the first computer system (in part, Server B)
`
`received a portion of identifier data (at least the client ID) from the user’s
`
`computer (the client) responsive to a timer applet (the tracking program). The only
`
`aspect of this claim element that Davis did not disclose was that this reception
`
`occurs “each time a predetermined temporal period elapses.”
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`As discussed in the Petition, a POSA would have found it obvious to modify
`
`Davis’s system so that the client would send the identifier data to Server B upon
`
`expiration of a predetermined temporal period. Petition at 16:17-17:13. Notably,
`
`Davis disclosed that its tracking program operated by running from the time the
`
`5
`
`web page was first loaded until the user leaves the web page. See, e.g., Davis at
`
`12:26-28 (“The STOP method of the applet which is executed, for example, when
`
`the user leaves the web page . . . [.]” (emphasis added)); Franz ¶¶103-109. A
`
`POSA would have recognized
`
`that running
`
`the
`
`tracking program
`
`timer
`
`continuously until the user leaves the web page was only one way of tracking the
`
`10
`
`duration the web page was displayed. Franz ¶¶103-109.
`
`A POSA would have recognized from Choi’s disclosure that using a series
`
`of periodic reports from the client to the server while the web page was displayed
`
`was an alternate approach for providing reports. Choi at ¶0047 (“The client 110
`
`periodically transmits state data (e.g., logging statistics) to the server 108 for
`
`15
`
`storage.”); Franz ¶¶103-109. Choi explained that the period of time after which the
`
`client would send the state data to the server could be configured during the setup
`
`of the session between the client and server: “[T]he frequency of reporting [is] set
`
`by the statistics reporting interval parameter sent in the initial request.” Choi at
`
`¶0097; Franz ¶¶103-109.
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`As discussed in the Petition, a POSA would have been motivated to modify
`
`Davis’s system to use a periodic timer, both because a POSA would have
`
`recognized that using a periodic timer to trigger a report from the client to Server B
`
`was one among a limited number of solutions to triggering the report, and because
`
`5
`
`a POSA would have recognized the periodic reporting interval was an instance of
`
`the very widely-used “heartbeat” messaging paradigm that was frequently used for
`
`client-server communications. Franz ¶¶103-109.
`
`As discussed in the Petition, a POSA would have found it obvious to include
`
`additional identifier data in the message received by Davis’s Server B from the
`
`10
`
`client. Petition at 30:10-31:9. Namely, a POSA would have found it obvious to
`
`have Server A provide the stream identifier to the client. Petition at 25:7-26:8;
`
`Franz ¶¶124-130. Consistent with that discussion, Choi disclosed including the
`
`stream identifier in the periodic reporting messages sent by the client to the server.
`
`15
`
`20
`
`The client 110 periodically transmits state data (e.g.,
`logging statistics) to the server 108 for storage. In
`addition, the server 108 tracks the status of each client
`viewer state and allows an administrator of server 108 to
`determine the state of any client 110. The state data
`includes a session identifier and a stream identifier
`corresponding to the current client-server session and the
`streams being delivered, respectively.
`Choi at ¶0047; see also id. at ¶¶0096, 0097.
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`A POSA would have been motivated to include the stream identifier in the
`
`tracking data reported by the client to Server B. A POSA would have recognized
`
`that when Davis’s system was modified to include streaming content, that
`
`streaming content was yet another type of resource about which website
`
`5
`
`administrators, advertisers, or marketers may want to have tracking data. Franz
`
`¶¶136-150. Providing a stream identifier to Server B would have allowed the
`
`system to perform this tracking, which would have provided further resource-usage
`
`information for the website administrators, advertisers, and marketers that Davis
`
`disclosed as the consumers of the tracking information. Id.
`
`10
`
`In sum, Davis disclosed a timer applet providing identifier data, the client ID,
`
`to the first computer system, Server B. Based on the teachings of Choi, a POSA
`
`would have found it obvious to provide the client ID, as well as other identifier
`
`data, the stream identifier, to the Server B each time a predetermined temporal
`
`period elapses.
`
`15
`
`B. None of Uniloc’s Arguments Undermine the Showing in the
`Petition.
`Uniloc’s arguments all fail to undermine the preceding showing made in the
`
`Petition.
`
`Uniloc first argues that this ground is deficient because Davis did not
`
`20
`
`disclose that the timer applet used on the client machine repeatedly reported the
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`consumption of a content at the expiration of predetermined time intervals. POR at
`
`15:3-16:3. But as explained above, Davis did disclose a timer applet, Petition at
`
`26-27, and it was the teachings of Choi that rendered the use of a predetermined
`
`time interval an obvious modification of Davis, Petition at 27-30.
`
`5
`
`Uniloc next critiques this ground based on the implication that it is the client
`
`in Choi that determines the predetermined temporal period. POR at 16:4-12. But
`
`Uniloc never explains why that matters. Claim 1 does not specify how the
`
`predetermined temporal period is determined, and it certainly does not require that
`
`it can only be determined by the first computer system. Nor has Uniloc sought a
`
`10
`
`construction to that effect.
`
`Uniloc next critiques this ground based on what seems to be an argument
`
`that Davis does not use a “timer applet.” POR at 16:13-20. But Davis’s tracking
`
`program is irrefutably a timer applet, based on the explicit disclosure of Davis
`
`itself:
`
`15
`
` “The other resource located on Server B is a JAVA applet, the
`
`tracking program.”
`
`Davis at 12:13-14.
`
`“In its simplest form, the tracking program is a timer program linked
`
`to an HTML document and is downloaded and executed on a client
`
`20
`
`when the HTML document is served to the client.”
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Davis at 9:3-4. And as explained above and in the Petition, based on the teachings
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`of Choi, a POSA would have found it obvious to have Davis’s tracking program, a
`
`timer applet, operate according to a predetermined temporal period.
`
`Uniloc next argues that in Davis’s system, as modified by Choi, the
`
`5
`
`identifier data would not be sent at the expiration of each predetermined temporal
`
`period. POR at 16:21-18:3. Uniloc points to Choi’s explanation that the “various
`
`statistical parameters that remain constant throughout the session are sent only
`
`once at the beginning of the session.” Id. (quoting Choi at ¶0097). Uniloc is
`
`wrong for two independent reasons.
`
`10
`
`First, as explained above and in the Petition, Davis itself already disclosed
`
`sending identifier data, the client ID, in each reporting message from the client to
`
`the Server B. Petition at 27-28. The Server B uses the client ID to associate the
`
`tracking data with the client that initially received the timer applet, Davis at 11:57-
`
`12:4, 12:33-42, Franz ¶¶132-134, and nothing in Choi’s disclosure suggests that
`
`15
`
`the Server B would somehow not need to keep track of the association between the
`
`client and the tracking data. Franz Supplement ¶¶6-11.
`
`Second, Uniloc’s characterization of Choi is directly refuted by Choi’s own
`
`disclosure. Paragraph 0097 of Choi explains that “various statistical parameters
`
`that remain constant throughout the session are sent only once.” Choi at ¶0097.
`
`20
`
`But identifier data is not such a “statistical parameter” that could be reported only
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`once. Namely, without including the identifier data, such as session identifier and
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`stream identifier, in each periodic report, the server would be unable to associate
`
`the reported logging statistics with the client. Choi at ¶0047; Franz Supplement
`
`¶¶6-11. Uniloc’s argument supposes an illogical situation where a client reports
`
`5
`
`data about content consumption to a server, but the server does not know what
`
`client it is talking to. Choi’s disclosure of not repeating constant statistical
`
`parameters does not suggest such an illogical result. Franz Supplement ¶¶6-11.
`
`Uniloc next critiques this ground because the client in Choi supposedly sets
`
`the period for reporting tracking data to the server. POR at 18:4-14. Uniloc claims
`
`10
`
`this “bears no resemblance to the claim language.” Id. But Uniloc points to no
`
`claim language in support. In fact, Claim 1 does not specify how the
`
`predetermined temporal period is determined, much less that it can only be
`
`determined by the first computer system. The argument is inapposite.
`
`Uniloc next critiques this ground based on the Petition’s reference to
`
`15
`
`paragraph 0047 of Choi. POR at 18:15-19:12. This is a recapitulation of Uniloc’s
`
`argument that identifier data would be sent only once because it is “constant.”
`
`This argument is incorrect for the reasons explained above.
`
`Uniloc next argues that Davis and Choi are incompatible because Choi
`
`suggests sending a blank value to the server for the client computer identifier.
`
`20
`
`POR at 19:13-20:5. This argument is flawed for two reasons.
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`First, as explained above Davis itself already disclosed sending the client ID
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`in each reporting message from the client to the Server B. Petition at 27-28. The
`
`Server B uses the client ID to associate the tracking data with the client that
`
`initially received the timer applet, Davis at 11:57-12:4, 12:33-42, Franz ¶¶132-134,
`
`5
`
`and nothing in Choi’s disclosure suggests that the Server B would somehow not
`
`need to keep track of the association between the tracking data and the client in the
`
`subsequent periodic reports. Franz Supplement ¶¶6-11.
`
`Second, the Petition did not argue that the “c-dns” value from Choi would
`
`have been incorporated into the system of Davis. Rather, the Petition argued that a
`
`10
`
`POSA would have found it obvious to include other identifier data, the stream
`
`identifier, in the message from the client to the Server B. Petition at 24-26; Franz
`
`¶¶124-130. And Choi most certainly does disclose sending the stream identifier
`
`from the client to the server. Choi at ¶0047; Franz ¶¶124-130.
`
`Uniloc finally critiques this ground because Davis and Choi supposedly do
`
`15
`
`not disclose identifier data that is “data that can be used to identify the user and to
`
`identify the provided corresponding web page.” POR at 20:6-12. This argument is
`
`flawed for numerous reasons.
`
`First, this meaning of “identifier data” comes from a construction in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas case against a third-party, and one that Uniloc did not
`
`20
`
`seek in its litigation against the Petitioner. See Ex. 2003. Uniloc curiously does
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`not actually advocate that this construction should be adopted in this proceeding.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`POR at 13. Rather, Uniloc contents itself with passively observing that the Eastern
`
`District of Texas adopted this construction. Id. This is not sufficient to showing to
`
`warrant the Board adopting this construction.
`
`5
`
`Second, while Uniloc characterizes that court’s construction as being based
`
`on various elements of the intrinsic record, POR at 13, this greatly overstates the
`
`analysis provided in reaching the Court’s construction. Namely, the parties in that
`
`case provided very similar constructions, both requiring the identifier data relate to
`
`a “user and the digital media presentation.” Ex. 2002 at 62. The only
`
`10
`
`disagreement between the parties was whether the identifier needed to “correlate”
`
`or “identify” the user and the digital media presentation. Id. Given the proximity
`
`of the constructions, the court provided a tentative construction that neither party
`
`disagreed with. Id. The court thus adopted the tentative construction with nothing
`
`more than a “see also” cite to 13:10-33 in the ’609 Patent. That posture in
`
`15
`
`combination with Uniloc’s lukewarm reference to the construction does not
`
`demonstrate that the construction should be adopted here.
`
`Third, this construction of “identifier data” is incorrect in view of the
`
`detailed description in the ’609 Patent. Namely, in the passage cited by the court
`
`in adopting that construction, there are two examples provided. First, in “certain
`
`20
`
`embodiments of the present invention,” the server can receive “identifying data,
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`such as in form of a cookie.” ’609 Patent at 13:10-23. The server can receive and
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`store the cookie. Id. Separately, and “[b]y way of further non-limiting example,”
`
`at the expiration of each temporal period, “a table entry may be made of the user,
`
`the page the user is on, and” other information. Id. at 13:24-33. Thus, the ’609
`
`5
`
`Patent clearly states that the embodiment where identifier data identifies a user and
`
`a webpage is only one, non-limiting example embodiment, and in another
`
`embodiment, the identifier data is a cookie. Thus, based on the parties agreement,
`
`the Eastern District of Texas court entered a construction narrower than the
`
`disclosure of the ’609 Patent. Notably, Davis describes precisely the first
`
`10
`
`embodiment’s use of a cookie. Davis at 11:59-12:4, 12:33-40.
`
`Fourth, even if the Board adopted this construction, the system of Davis as
`
`modified by Choi includes this feature. Davis, as noted above, discloses that the
`
`identifier data provided in the HTTP request header includes a cookie, the “client
`
`ID,” which is exactly what the ’609 Patent itself discloses in the passage relied
`
`15
`
`upon by the Eastern District of Texas. See Davis at 11:59-12:4, 12:33-40; ’609
`
`Patent at 13:10-23; Franz ¶¶121-130, 132-134. The HTTP request header in the
`
`message from the client to the Server B also included the “network ID (IP address)”
`
`and “the URL of the Web page” that was being displayed. Davis at 11:59-12:4,
`
`12:33-40; Franz ¶¶121-130, 132-134. A POSA would have understood that a
`
`20
`
`cookie / client ID, a network identifier, and an identification of the URL of the
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`webpage being displayed is “data that can be used to identify the user and to
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`identify the provided corresponding web page.” Davis at 4:24-32, 11:59-12:4;
`
`Franz Supplement ¶9.
`
`While Uniloc alleges that there are myriad deficiencies in this ground, POR
`
`5
`
`at 20:13-21, Uniloc’s arguments fail to substantiate any of the purported
`
`deficiencies. The Petition showed that claim 1 would have been obvious to a
`
`POSA based on the combination of Davis and Choi, and the POR does nothing to
`
`undermine that showing.
`
`10
`
`III. THE COMBINATION OF SILER AND DAVIS RENDER ALL
`
`CLAIMS OBVIOUS (GROUND II)
`Uniloc’s arguments against the Siler and Davis ground focuses on two
`
`limitations of claim 1: the “receiving” step discussed above; and the limitation of
`
`“wherein each provided webpage causes corresponding digital media presentation
`
`data to be streamed from a second computer system distinct from the first
`
`15
`
`computer system directly to the user’s computer independent of the first computer
`
`system.” For the reasons discussed below, none of the attacks lodged by Uniloc
`
`with respect to this claim undermine the showing in the Petition that the
`
`combinations of Siler and Davis renders claim 1 obvious.
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`For the Board’s convenience, a summary of Netflix’s and Dr. Franz’s
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`arguments and evidence from the Petition is first summarized (§ III.A, C below),
`
`and then Uniloc’s arguments are addressed (§ II.B, D below).
`
`5
`
`A. The Petition Demonstrated that Siler as Modified by Davis
`Rendered the “Receiving” Step Obvious.
`As explained in the Petition, Siler disclosed all aspects of this claim element
`
`other than that Siler’s timer function was an applet. Petition at 56-59. And
`
`provision of Siler’s timer function as an applet was an obvious modification of
`
`Siler based on the teachings of Davis. Id. at 56; Franz ¶¶206-218.
`
`10
`
`Siler disclosed that web server 113, part of the first computer system,
`
`received the identifier data, in the form of the session identifier, from user client
`
`101, the user’s computer, responsive to the timer function of user client 101 each
`
`time a predetermined temporal period, the prescribed time of Figure 3, elapses.
`
`As explained in the Petition, Siler disclosed that user client 101 includes a
`
`15
`
`timer function that causes user client 101 to send on a periodic basis identifier data
`
`to web server 113, waiting for a prescribed time, and repeating this:
`
`20
`
`Referring now to FIGS. 1 and 3 in step 301, player
`application 122 sends information to web server 113.
`This information may be automatically sent on a periodic
`basis. This information preferably includes the user
`identifier, the session identifier and the stream
`identifier. . . . The player application waits for a
`prescribed time before repeating the process, as indicated
`by step 311.
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Siler at ¶0028.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 3, annotated. The identifier data received by web server 113 included
`
`the session identifier previously provided by web servers 113 and 117 to user
`
`
`
`5
`
`client 101. Siler at ¶0028.
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`While Siler did not explicitly describe that the timer function of user client
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`101 was provided as an applet to user client 101 from using web servers 113
`
`and 117, Davis disclosed this feature. Davis at 12:13-50; see also id. at 9:20-23,
`
`18:1-5. As explained in the Petition, a POSA would have been motivated to
`
`5
`
`modify Siler’s system based on the teachings of Davis so that the timer function
`
`would be provided as an applet downloadable from web servers 113 and 117 to the
`
`user client 101. Petition at 43-44, 56, Franz ¶¶206-218. Siler already disclosed an
`
`alternative implementation of having player application 122 provided as a web
`
`page, and implementing the timer function as a downloadable applet would have
`
`10
`
`been one of a limited number of well-known design choices, Franz ¶¶206-218.
`
`Additionally, implementation of the timer as an applet would have been a suitable
`
`implementation for a web page-based content viewer, id., and the timer function
`
`could have been advantageously implemented with a small amount of code, like
`
`the simple applet code described in Davis. Davis at 12:13-50; Franz ¶¶206-218.
`
`15
`
`Thus, Siler disclosed every aspect of this claim element, other than that the
`
`timer function is provided as an applet. But a POSA would have found it obvious
`
`in light of the teachings of Siler and Davis to provide the timer function as an
`
`applet.
`
`20
`
`B. None of Uniloc’s Arguments Undermine the Showing in the
`Petition.
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`Uniloc’s arguments all fail to undermine the preceding showing made in the
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`Petition.
`
`Uniloc first critiques this ground by repeating its incorrect assertion that
`
`Davis does not disclose a timer applet. POR at 21:11-19. As explained above in
`
`5
`
`§ II.B, Davis explicitly discloses a timer applet. And in any case, Uniloc’s critique
`
`is backwards: Siler discloses a timer function that operates according to a
`
`predetermined temporal period, and it would have been obvious to modify that
`
`timer function to provide it as an applet. Petition at 43-44, 56, Franz ¶¶206-218.
`
`Uniloc’s argument focuses only on the secondary reference and ignores the
`
`10
`
`extensive explanation of motivation to combine provided in the Petition.
`
`Uniloc next critiques this ground based on supposed “party admissions.”
`
`POR at 21:20-22:4. Uniloc’s argument seems to focus on the fact that Siler
`
`describes a player application installed on the client. Again, Uniloc completely
`
`disregards the extensive explanation of motivation to combine provided in the
`
`15
`
`Petition: Siler itself suggests modifying the player application to provide it as a
`
`webpage, and a POSA would have found it obvious to provide the timer function
`
`as an applet in such a scenario. Petition at 43-44, 56, Franz ¶¶206-218.
`
`Uniloc next critiques this ground because the Petition supposedly did not
`
`explain why a webpage implementation of Siler’s client application relates to the
`
`20
`
`use of an applet. POR at 22:5-11. But Uniloc ignores the extensive explanation of
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`this very subject. Petition at 43-44, 56, Franz ¶¶206-218. In short, Siler disclosed
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`the timer function installed on the user client 101 when the player application 122
`
`was an application installed on the user client 101. Petition at 43-44, 56, Franz
`
`¶¶206-218. But when the player application 122 was modified to be provided as a
`
`5
`
`webpage, as Siler itself suggested, a POSA would have found it obvious to provide
`
`the timer function as an applet, because that was one of a finite number of ways to
`
`provide downloadable code, because it was a well-known and preferable way to
`
`implement custom functionality (the timer function) in a webpage, and because the
`
`applet implementation would have required less software to be stored permanently
`
`10
`
`on the user client 101. Petition at 43-44, 56, Franz ¶¶206-218. Uniloc completely
`
`ignores this detailed presentation.
`
`Uniloc’s next argument is a repeat of the argument based on the Eastern
`
`District of Texas construction of “identifier data.” POR at 22:12-18. As explained
`
`above in § II.B, Uniloc does not actually advocate for the adoption of that
`
`15
`
`construction here, and that construction is incorrect in view of the different
`
`example embodiments provided in the ’609 Patent, so the Board should not adopt
`
`it. In any case, if the Board adopts that construction, the combination of Siler and
`
`Davis includes those features, based both on Siler’s disclosure of receiving a
`
`session identifier and based on Davis’s disclosures discussed above. See Petition
`
`20
`
`at 56-59; Siler at ¶0026 (describing contents of session record containing the
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`session identifier, user identifier, and media stream); Franz ¶¶206-218; see also
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`§ II.B.
`
`While Uniloc alleges that there are myriad deficiencies in this ground, POR
`
`at 22:19-23:5, Uniloc’s arguments fail to substantiate any of the purported
`
`5
`
`deficiencies. The Petition showed that claim 1 would have been obvious to a
`
`POSA based on the combination of Siler and Davis, and the POR does nothing to
`
`undermine that showing.
`
`10
`
`C. The Petition Demonstrated that Siler as Modified by Davis
`Rendered the “Wherein Each Provided Webpage . . .” Element
`Obvious.
`As explained in the Petition, Siler disclosed all aspects of this claim element.
`
`Namely, Siler taught that the web page provided by web servers 113 and 117 to
`
`user client 101, the user’s computer, caused user client 101 to stream media data
`
`from streaming server 105, the second computer system, directly to user client 101.
`
`15
`
`Petition at 61-62.
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`
`
`Siler at Fig. 1, annotated by Petitioners, combined from Figs. 1A and 1B.
`
`Siler disclosed that, as a result of a user selecting a stream to display, web
`
`servers 113 and 117 provided user client 101 with a URL, which caused the user
`
`5
`
`client 101 to stream content from streaming server 105. Siler at ¶¶0025, 0027.
`
`Streaming server 105 transferred the streaming media directly to user client 101
`
`over the packet network 103. Id. at ¶0027; id. at ¶0017 (“The data stream is
`
`transmitted by a streaming server 105 through packet network 103 to the client
`
`computer.”). Franz ¶¶234-236.
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`As explained in the Petition, when Siler’s system used the alternative
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`implementation of having player application 122 provided as a web page, a POSA
`
`would have found it obvious to have web servers 113 and 117 provide a web page
`
`to user client 101 fo