Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`Entered: March 15, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`BYTEDANCE LTD. and TIKTOK INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRILLER, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`_______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 20, 2022
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`Entered: March 15, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`BYTEDANCE LTD. and TIKTOK INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRILLER, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`_______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 20, 2022
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`W. KARL RENNER, ESQ.
`ADAM J. KESSEL, ESQ.
`KIM H. LEUNG, ESQ.
`DAN SMITH, ESQ.
`Fish & Richardson
`1000 Maine Avenue SW
`Washington, DC 20024
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`CHAD E. NYDEGGER, ESQ.
`DAVID R. TODD, ESQ.
`BRIAN N. PLATT, ESQ.
`Workman Nydegger
`60 East South Temple, Suite 1000
`Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, January
`
`20, 2022, commencing at 1:00 p.m., EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE ANDERSON: -- proceeding is a hearing for
`IPR2021-00099, an inter partes review between Petitioner
`ByteDance Ltd. and TikTok Inc. and Patent Owner Triller, Inc.
`Triller is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,691,429 B2.
` I am Judge Anderson. Joining me on this video
`conference are Judges Braden and Chung. We're all
`participating via teleconference, and there are some
`things we need to keep in mind as a result of that.
` Chief among these is the handling of demonstrative
`exhibits. Make sure that you refer to each exhibit by slide
`number so that we can go with you. We also have substantial
`portions of the record. So if you need to refer to that, you
`know, you may do so.
` Each party is going to have 60 minutes to present
`argument. Petitioner has the burden to show unpatentability
`of the patent, and as a result, they're going to go first and
`may reserve -- and will be followed by the Patent Owner.
`Petitioner may reserve time for rebuttal, and Patent Owner
`may reserve time for a sur-rebuttal.
` We do not have a timer in -- because we're not in a
`hearing room, but I will -- and, hopefully, my panel members
`will also -- attempt to keep time. But you all should --
`should not rely on us, so watch, but we will do -- we will do
`the timing as -- as -- and we should -- we should be fine
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
`with telling you the correct time and how much time you have
`to finish up.
` Let's see. What else do I want to say?
` We have not received any objections to the
`demonstratives. If either party has an objection to an
`argument that's made during the course of the proceedings,
`don't make it at that time, please. We want to hear what you
`have to say, but do that in your time, and we'll follow
`along. We'll have a written record and be able to determine
`whether or not the objection will be sustained or not.
` At this time, let's get some introductions. For
`Petitioner, who is going to be doing the speaking today?
` MR. SMITH: Karl, you're muted.
` MR. RENNER: First moment of our remoteness shows up
`so early.
` In any event, I'm Karl Renner. It's nice to see you
`all, and I'll be presenting on behalf of Petitioner, joined
`though by colleagues Dan Smith, Adam Kessel, and Kim Leung.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Very good. Thank you, Mr. Renner.
` For Patent Owner, who will be making the argument?
` MR. NYDEGGER: Morning, Your Honor. This is Chad
`Nydegger from Workman Nydegger. I will be making the
`argument on behalf of Patent Owner. With me today in the
`room, I also have my -- two of my partners, David Todd and
`Brian Platt.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. Very good. I've got all that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
`down, and we are ready to proceed.
` Petitioner, you are on deck here, ready to go. And
`would you like to reserve any time for rebuttal? And, if so,
`how much time?
` MR. RENNER: I would, Your Honor. We'd like to
`reserve 25 minutes, please.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: So we will try to give you a
`heads-up a little before 35 minutes of your argument.
` MR. RENNER: Thank you.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Very good. Mr. Renner, please,
`proceed.
` ORAL ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
` MR. RENNER: Okay. Well, may it please the Court.
` If you'd go to Slide 2, please, of our
`demonstratives, you'll see a Table of Contents that's
`produced there. Interestingly, we'll be working backwards
`through the Table of Contents, starting with the
`Beauregard-Hozumi combination, and then we'll address some
`specific issues as it relates to a few of the other items.
`Of course, we're happy to take questions on anything that
`you'd like to hear about.
` But, with that in mind, I would have us go to Slide
`67 to begin our discussion of that Beauregard-Hozumi ground.
` And I should say to you I'll be presenting on that
`ground, and after that, Dan Smith will be joining and
`speaking to additional points.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
` As to the Beauregard and Hozumi ground, just wanting
`to remind everyone that this is a ground that was endorsed in
`the Institution Decision, and it was a fundamental part of
`the Institution Decision in that other grounds that had been
`presented, items were identified with respect to each of
`those. So this ground was one that was really central to
`that investigation.
` And it was instituted over a host of arguments and
`citations to record evidence that were made by Patent Owner
`in the Preliminary -- Preliminary Response. And I mention
`that because when we look at the Institution Decision in this
`case, it's a little -- it's almost uncharacteristically
`detailed in that there was a lot of consideration given to
`those points.
` And I make that known because when we look at the
`record, it's our impression that the record is largely
`rehashing those same arguments. You're not seeing a lot of
`new arguments. You're not seeing a lot of evidence submitted
`that wasn't earlier put forth, and yet, under an expert's
`testimony, there is an expert declaration that came in after
`the fact that did endorse. So I just wanted to lay that
`groundwork.
` One notable exception, additionally, I wanted to call
`out was arguments were made after the institution that
`related to combinability of the references, so we're going to
`be speaking a lot about how the references come together and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
`how this ground comes together to make sure that Your Honors
`have every opportunity to consider both views on that, that
`particular issue.
` If I could go to Slide 68 with that in mind. We talk
`a little bit about the Beauregard reference, the primary. In
`this slide, we reproduce page 50 of the Petition, and we cite
`to the Beauregard case and offer an explanation to some
`extent of what it teaches.
` And in particular, we're talking about two
`limitations of Beauregard here, number one being the
`alignment of synchronization of not just one but multiple
`video clips, which -- which Triller's expert acknowledges is
`video takes. Now, they're aligned to a single selected audio
`track, then the leveraging of the synchronization or the
`alignment of those with that audio track to create what is
`thought of as a single video production.
` Offered in the main paragraph, under the highlighted
`section of Beauregard, is teachings that the recorded clips
`while the common audio track is being recorded as well, so
`these are happening in concert with one another. In fact,
`Beauregard, when you read into it, it describes that users
`can record clips of themselves dancing, lip-synching, playing
`along, if you will, with each synchronized to the same
`selected audio track that is replayed during video recording.
` Slide 69, please.
` Here you see a graphical representation of what
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
`Beauregard has to offer, highlighted and annotated, of
`course. I'm going to walk through this just for a moment for
`orientation.
` The top of this shows in green the audio track. It's
`again reproduced down at the bottom to illustrate how
`ultimately a music video comes together, but the top is this
`audio track. Right below it are six different video segments
`-- Video 1, Video 2, Video 3 -- all the way down to 6. Each
`of those is captured in synchronization with the audio track,
`says Beauregard.
` And the music video in red down at the bottom, when
`you start looking at what happens to those, in green, you see
`the audio, again, reproduced. But above the green, you see
`segments from each one of those different video tracks. Each
`one of those is -- there's pieces of it that comprise part of
`what becomes that music video. So there's a compilation
`going on.
` From all this, end of drawing, of course, you see
`that Beauregard's teaching the capture of the plural video
`takes in synchronization with a single selected audio track,
`and that's pretty well established.
` But left to its own --
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Mr. -- Mr. Renner, I have, I think,
`a quick question, which is, The Patent Owner seemed to say
`that with respect to the video take --
` MR. RENNER: Um-hmm.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
` JUDGE ANDERSON: -- limitation language in the claim,
`Claim 1, that you had agreed in the district court with their
`construction that the video take was recorded continuously.
`I had a hard time believing that, but maybe it's true, so
`tell me.
` MR. RENNER: Yes, Your Honor. There was an agreement
`that was reached. This is, of course, after the Petition was
`filed, but yes, there was an agreement that was reached in
`the district court on that term and its construction.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: So are we following the construction
`of Patent Owner, which I believe is for video take --
` MR. RENNER: That is correct.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: -- a segment of recorded video that
`was continuously recorded without starting or stopping?
` MR. RENNER: That was the agreed on in this record
`construction, Your Honor.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. So we're following that;
`right? That's right?
` MR. RENNER: Yes. Correct, Your Honor. Yes.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. Very good. Okay. Go ahead.
` MR. RENNER: Okay. Thank you.
` If we turn -- my apologies. Then let's continue on
`with the Beauregard discussion a little bit, if we could.
` The -- what I just was talking about was endorsed in
`the Institution Decision because this is the same layout,
`what we were just talking about, in terms of what Beauregard
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
`discusses as had been put forth in the Petition, supported by
`the expert at that time.
` Again, the Institution Decision goes into fairly
`significant detail on exactly what this means, and also,
`however, it turns to Hozumi, as we had encouraged, relating
`to how you do the synchronization in the combination that's
`been proposed. And in particular, Hozumi teaches what has
`been -- what's become known as the beginning-beginning
`synchronization between the audio track and the captured
`video segments that are here. So we want to look together at
`the beginning here, at Hozumi, make sure we've got a grounded
`sense of it, if we could, please; therefore, I would go to
`Slide 48, if we could.
` In Slide 48, we've reproduced paragraph 77 from
`Hozumi. There's a couple of really key paragraphs in Hozumi
`that are spoken of quite often, 77 being one of them and 92
`another -- and we'll take that on in a minute -- and to
`Figure 6C here.
` And what you see here is Hozumi's explaining that the
`audio track begins playing in synchronization with this very
`specific event, and that is the beginning of the capture of
`video. So, in the particular embodiment of Hozumi, what you
`have is a user who presses start on capture video, and when
`they do that, Hozumi teaches that they begin to play -- the
`recorder does -- the audio track of interest. And, in that
`sense, you guarantee alignment of the beginning of the audio
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
`and the beginning of the video, and it's actually built in to
`what Hozumi is teaching.
` There's reasons for that, and we'll go into that
`after we get done talking about what the combination actually
`brings and entails.
` The point here is that Hozumi is talking about a
`bringing forth of that audio and that video at the same time,
`so they can be recorded in synchronization, and you can read
`that into paragraph 77 itself. I'll just for a moment say,
`do that. It says, Shown in Figure 6C -- which is on the
`right, so it's telling us that's what that's intended to
`represent -- when the video-image capture unit 112 starts
`capturing video images of an object, audio controller 132
`causes the audio output 110 to output audio data.
` So it's telling us really clearly there that's the
`way Hozumi is designed. And when we bring these two
`together, of course, what you'd see is you'd have the video
`clips, the multiple of the video clips that are shown in
`Beauregard that are aligned with and synchronized in their
`own way with the audio track in Beauregard. You would use,
`as the combination says, this mechanism, the mechanism that's
`described here explicitly in Hozumi to accomplish that
`synchronization -- perhaps differently, but that's how you'd
`accomplish that synchronization of the combination.
` Now, further to the point, Figure 6, which is
`referenced there on the right-hand side -- and I don't mean
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
`to beat a dead horse here, but just to make sure we're all
`seeing this -- it shows you that alignment. It shows you the
`specifics.
` And let me pause for a second. And, Judge Braden, I
`see your video is doing things. Can you hear? I just want
`to make sure I'm not (inaudible) --
` JUDGE BRADEN: No, I can hear.
` MR. RENNER: Okay. Terrific. Thank you.
` JUDGE BRADEN: Thank you.
` MR. RENNER: Sure.
` You can see the alignment there of -- of what the
`video is and that audio, and they begin at the beginning.
`Who knew? Which would be consistent, as you could imagine,
`with hitting that start button and seeing things unfold.
` So, if we look now to Slide 83, we see the other of
`the two principal paragraphs that we draw from in Hozumi, the
`92 paragraph. And here, again, you see the
`beginning-beginning synchronization being confirmed. In this
`paragraph, it just describes largely the same thing, but it's
`in a different section, and it's just showing you the
`comprehensiveness of it.
` It says, If a user gives an instruction to start
`capturing video images -- this is the highlighted section --
`audio controller 132 causes the audio output unit 110 to
`sequentially output the audio data.
` Again, you're triggering that audio data start on the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
`capture.
` So what's made of these proofs in the record? How
`are they handled? We'll tell you there's not handling much
`at all. 92 and 77 are just not contested. This teaching, it
`comes in. It's the -- it's correct, it's accurate, and it's
`actually endorsed.
` If you look at the Patent Owner Reply, for instance,
`at page 50, you'd see, and I'll quote, Figure 6C shows that
`the beginning of the set of video frames is synchronized with
`the beginning of the set of audio frames.
` So it's pretty -- pretty tight on that point.
` If we go to Slide 70, please. We'll continue on
`looking at the combination, of course.
` Consistent with what's been stated in the Petition,
`then, in the combination, we get several things. You've got
`Beauregard's multiple video recordings against a single audio
`track would be initiated with a video camera. And according
`to Hozumi, the video camera would inspire, trigger, begin the
`audio track playback and the video capture at the same time.
`And, therefore, while the video capture's occurring, a POSITA
`would've found it obvious to synchronize the plural
`Beauregard video clips with an audio track using
`beginning-beginning synchronization consistent with the
`claim.
` And this is all described, again. We're -- nothing
`here is outside of the scope or what's been in the Petition
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
`or what came forward to you. And next I'll go to 71 just to
`make sure.
` You're saying, Well, why would you make that
`modification? So that's the modification we propose. That's
`how it works. But why would you do it? Would a person of
`skill do it? Surely, they would. There's several different
`reasons, and we laid it out in the next few slides.
` JUDGE BRADEN: But, Counselor, before you get to your
`rationale for combining, Patent Owner makes an argument that
`there is a conflation between the different audio tracks,
`between Hozumi's video being synchronized with Beauregard,
`and it ignores the synchronization while capturing step of
`Claim 1. Why is that not true in Petitioner's perspective?
` MR. RENNER: Hmm. Because the audio and the video
`are being played and captured at the same time, and you can
`see in the processing of Hozumi that there is a multiplexing
`that happens in the processing of Hozumi.
` That was actually questioned on the deposition with
`the expert for Triller. We asked him, What -- what did it
`mean? How did that all work?
` And what was said in that transcript -- I'll see if I
`can find it. There's a slide actually that speaks well to
`the content here. Let me see. I think it is 49. Yeah.
`Yeah, I think it is 49. Yeah, 49. Okay.
` So, Slide 49, if we go to 49, please.
` Let me get a better view of that because it's a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
`little small on my screen here, if I may. There it is.
`Yeah, 49.
` So, in this, there were questions and answers that
`were asked about -- in fact, let me go back to 47 for a
`moment first, and it'll help us to orient a little better.
` 47 gives you Figure 9 from Hozumi, and it goes down
`the same process; right? Where you're going to have the
`selected information come forth, you're going to have the
`output audio data in 4- -- my eyes aren't what they used to
`be -- 406, and then you create the video data. And,
`ultimately, you come down into the decision, and you start to
`-- you multiplex at 238 these two. So the process is you
`capture each one; you multiplex them together to you make
`sure that, in fact, that synchronization is locked in.
` But we asked the expert about that. We said, is that
`your understanding of what went on here? And, sure enough,
`the answers are what we thought they would be.
` Question/answer on the right-hand side of Slide 49
`tells us, you know:
` So the multiplexing step 238, described in Figure 6,
`that occurs while the audio data is being outputted; right?
` Correct. Seems to, is what the answer is.
` And the multiplexing 238, it occurs while the video
`data is being captured; right?
` Yes, seems to be.
` He was confirming exactly what the figure seems to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
`show. We just wanted to make sure of it. Then, in fact,
`what's happening is these things are coming together at the
`same time. They're being multiplexed at the same time.
`They're being synchronized at the same time.
` I believe that's -- I believe that gets to the
`answer, but are there -- did I --
` JUDGE BRADEN: Thank you, Counsel. I do believe I
`understand your perspective. Thank you.
` MR. RENNER: Thank you. You bet.
` And so -- so we're back to, Well, would you make the
`change? That's the change that we propose to be made, but we
`want to make sure we gave you a record that showed that
`people, in fact, would've made the change because Beauregard
`is Beauregard; it teaches you to actually do what it teaches
`you to do, and we're telling you to move away from that or at
`least give an alternative to it.
` There were four different reasons that we gave.
`Interestingly, the fourth is KSR. We'll talk about that, but
`the other three being more substantively oriented and
`directed to these particular references, we want to make sure
`you hear that these are -- these are advantages or things
`that are not achieved through Beauregard's current approach.
`These are things that would be achieved because of that
`integration.
` So let's look at the first of those -- would be at
`Slide 72, please.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
` We do this again in the Petition, and I believe they
`were referenced and endorsed in the Institution Decision as
`well. I think you had had a look at them.
` But -- but, in any event, this is the automation of
`the audio track playback on beginning the video capture.
`That itself is an advantage. That itself is -- it may not be
`in every instance that you'd want to do that, but there would
`surely be some instances where this would be advantageous,
`and we pointed that out. I can imagine -- and I'll just
`paint the picture of one.
` You might want to do a video that's got to deal with
`a song that you like. Wouldn't it be nice that when you push
`the one button, which is the video capture, that song that
`you want to do your video to, it starts up -- so that you
`have alignment right then, right there between the audio and
`that video? That's advantage number one.
` Number two, if you look at 73, another reason to
`combine has a lot to do with that. And that is to avoid
`misalignment that would otherwise potentially occur between
`an audio segment and whatever video you're trying to -- so
`you're trying to do that same song, and you don't have the
`automation that Hozumi brings to bear. What happens?
`There's going to be some -- some misalignment as between the
`two, and you're going to have to deal with that.
` In fact, when you look at Beauregard, you see that
`very misalignment appear. If you look at that same figure
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
`that we looked at a few moments ago, you would see -- there
`it is, if you go back to Slide 69 -- you'd see Vid 1 and Vid
`3, even Vid 2, and you would see these extend kind of to the
`left. You see other videos are to the right of the start.
`You see some misalignment that's going on in the front end of
`the video in that audio segment, and you've got to do some
`complex math. You've got to do some cross-correlation, says
`Beauregard, to get to something that's synchronization.
` Now, there's -- I'm sure there's benefits to that
`too; right? But these are different approaches to accomplish
`different goals.
` The third reason is that you might not even have a
`user remember. He's in a loud environment. He's kind of
`distracted. He might not even remember to hit that start
`button, and then they've got to redo their video. You
`automate this for them. It's similar to the automation, but
`it's a little different than that.
` And then, finally, you've got KSR that tells us that
`what we have here is you've got Beauregard with a very clear
`teaching; you've got Hozumi with a not unclear teaching of
`its own; and what we have here is known methods to achieve
`predictable results. And we would expect -- reasonable
`expectation would be to have success here, so KSR itself
`supports, we believe, as well.
` With that, I would move us to Slide 76, and we kind
`of recap on that a minute because it wasn't -- in the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
`Institution Decision, if we wanted to look back on it, pages
`34 and 35, they kind of touched on a variety of these points,
`these reasons to combine. And, as with some of the other
`aspects of -- of Hozumi, we found that they were thinly
`treated.
` But, in any event, there were two reasons given that
`were not rebuttals to these; these were accepted, if you
`will. They were not actually contested motivations for
`combination, but these were presented more as a teaching away
`that, despite those motivations, despite that coming together
`in the way that we talk about, there might be reasons, say
`Triller, to not pull these together. We examine those with
`you as well.
` Now, we think that's a pretty high burden you'd have
`to show because we've already, we believe, accomplished our
`prima facie case, and this comes in more as a teaching away
`than anything else.
` In any event, there are two arguments that we thought
`were worth talking about. And those we -- we show at Slide
`92, in the first instance, and that would be the argument
`that there's a frustration going on through the combination
`of Beauregard's primary principle teaching.
` The second, we will address after that. Just a
`preview for you is there is thought to be more communications
`necessary if you made this combination than if not, and that
`was thought to be something that Beauregard didn't want to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
`have happen. They talk about that as well.
` But Slide 92 starts us off in discussing the
`principle of operation, so we could go to that and turn
`really pretty quickly to 93.
` The Petition explains that, according to Triller, a
`POSITA consulting Beauregard would recognize that it teaches
`the correlation of the captured videos. The videos that are
`correlated are earlier captured videos, and they've --
`they've been synchronized with a single audio work and that
`there is -- they're used by Beauregard to correlate those
`videos.
` What they seem to fail to appreciate is that there
`would be problems that come with Beauregard's approach, just
`the things that could be improved and that, in fact, are
`approved, as we've just talked about, by Hozumi.
` Number one, that cross-correlation technique that's
`talked about there, it's an after-the-fact technique and it's
`a very complex technique. It's mathematically intensive.
`And you don't need any of that if you start your audio and
`your video at the same time. You start them at the same
`time, immediately, you have synchronization. You don't have
`to do extra work, and you don't have to wait for it. It's
`just right there for you.
` It also imposes burdens on the user. The user has to
`deal with its audio; it has to deal with the video. With the
`Hozumi-complemented Beauregard, as we've proposed, you touch
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
`one button, and you're off and running.
` So the idea that there's a cross-correlation as a
`fundamental principle of Beauregard that's somehow blown up
`and instructed and would lead people to not make this
`combination, well, we think quite the contrary.
` We think that this combination would be something
`that's going to improve Beauregard, at least for some
`applications. Again, there may be reasons why, in some
`instances, you want to maintain a Beauregard-type approach as
`an option. You know, maybe you didn't have the video you
`wanted to start on, or it's -- the noise is already being
`played, whatever it may be. But this is an option that we
`believe and have put forth a record that tells you were
`obvious to those of skill to make available to do that
`combination.
` I'm going to actually move into the other argument.
`Let's talk a little bit about the communication argument.
`Slide 98 is where you'll find --
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Let me -- this may be a good spot to
`ask this: So does the construction of synchronization,
`either this capture synchronization or the
`beginning-beginning synchronization, or there's actually a
`third synchronizing described in the -- or claimed in the
`patent, does our construction -- do we need to construe that
`in order to resolve this dispute?
` Because it seems like a lot of what you're talking
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
`about here with cross-correlation leads back to the whole
`idea of what I think the patent is all about, and -- and it
`does seem to go to synchronization, generally.
` MR. RENNER: Your Honor, we -- we haven't seen a
`record on this that we believe has that term or those terms
`distinguishing this art. So the answer -- we don't believe
`that it's necessary for Your Honors to reach construction on
`those terms in order to resolve this part of the dispute.
` We're happy to, obviously, take any questions on
`that, or if opposing counsel has a different view, we're
`happy to, of course, hear that, but I don't believe the
`record bears that out.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. Well, we will get to opposing
`counsel, but so, is there any particular problem you have
`with the Patent Owner's -- I think they're saying it's the
`plain and ordinary meaning, which is, quote, “matching so as
`to be substantially the same,” end quote. Seems to me like
`that is just the plain and ordinary meaning. I don't think
`it adds much.
` Do you have any argument that would say that's not
`something we should look at or adopt?
` MR. RENNER: I don't believe so. I'll go back -- if
`you -- if you'll forgive me, Your Honors, I'll go back on the
`break to make sure. I didn't -- I didn't put that into the
`direct here and hadn't planned to give you argument on that
`term. But I'll confirm that. If it's okay, I'll come back
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00099
`Patent 9,691,429 B2
`
`up and make sure of it when we get back to the redirect.
` JUDGE ANDERSON: Very good. And, correspondingly, as
`long as you're going to work on your break, you say -- you --
`the Petitioner says that synchronization is establishing a
`relationship between a plurality of videos and the selected
`-- I felt I was corrected by Patent Owner and appropriately
`so -- the selected audio track.
` Same question about that or same request for some
`kind of comment. It seems like that doesn't really help us
`very much. It seem
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
