`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`STRATOSAUDIO, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Patent No. 8,903,307
`____________________
`
`
`PETITIONER VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`
`B.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Broadcast Segment ................................................................................ 2
`1.
`The claims do not support PO’s additional limitations. ............. 3
`2.
`The specification does not support PO’s additional limitations. 5
`3.
`PO’s admissions contradict its proposed construction. .............. 7
`“a receiver configured to receive a broadcast stream comprising the at
`least one broadcast segment and associated media content” ................ 7
`“associating/associated” ........................................................................ 8
`C.
`“corollary” ............................................................................................. 9
`D.
`III. Takahisa Anticipates Challenged Claims 11, 15, 16, and 18 (Ground 1). ...... 9
`A.
`Takahisa Discloses the Preamble of Claim 11. ..................................... 9
`B.
`Takahisa Discloses Claim Element 11[d]: “each identifying data
`aggregate associated with … the at least one broadcast segment” .....12
`Takahisa Discloses Claim 16. .............................................................15
`C.
`IV. Takahisa Renders Claim 17 Obvious (Ground 2). ........................................18
`V. Mackintosh Renders Obvious Challenged claims 11 and 15-18 (Ground 3).
` .......................................................................................................................18
`A. Mackintosh Discloses the Preamble of Claim 11. ..............................19
`B. Mackintosh Discloses Claim Element 11[d]: “each identifying data
`aggregate associated with … the at least one broadcast segment” .....20
`C. Mackintosh Renders Obvious Claim 11. ............................................23
`D. Mackintosh Discloses Claim 16. .........................................................25
`VI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`PETITIONER’S UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`Exhibi
`t No. Description
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,903,307
`1002 File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,903,307
`1003 Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 5,579,537 (Takahisa)
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,317,784 (Mackintosh)
`1006 W. RICHARD STEVENS, TCP/IP ILLUSTRATED, VOL. 1 (1994)
`1007 R. Smith, IP Address: Your Internet Identity (Mar. 29, 1997)
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,925,489 (Curtin)
`What are UPCs, EANs, ISBNs. and ASINs?, Amazon (Feb. 27, 2007),
`https://www.amazon.com/gp/seller/asin-upc-isbn-info.html, available
`via Wayback Machine at https://web.archive.org/web/20070227180429/
`https://www.amazon.com/gp/seller/asin-upc-isbn-info.html (last visited
`Mar. 25, 2021)
`Cora L. Diaz de Chumaceiro, Induced Recall of Mozart’s Requiem in
`Amadeus, 60 AM. J. OF PSYCHOANALYSIS 85 (Mar. 1, 2000)
`Amazon Standard Identification Number, Wikipedia (Jan. 29, 2005),
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Standard_Identification_Number
`, available via Wayback Machine at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20050129220323/
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Standard_Identification_Number
`(last visited Mar. 25, 2021)
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Grp. – Trucking
`1012
`LLC, IPR2019-01393, Patent Owner’s Supplemental Brief
`[Proposed] Second Amended Joint Scheduling Order
`1013
`1014 Volkswagen’s Motion to Dismiss, or Transfer, for Improper Venue
`1015 September 3, 2021 Email Stipulation re IPR Grounds
`1016 Declaration of Mark Hannemann in support of pro hac vice admission
`1017 Declaration of Thomas R. Makin in support of pro hac vice admission
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to
`1018
`Patent Owner’s Response (“Madisetti Reply Decl.”).
`1019 Deposition Transcript of John C. Hart, taken March 31, 2022.
`
`1011
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Petition demonstrated that all challenged claims of the ’307 patent are
`
`unpatentable. The Patent Owner Response (POR) confirms this. Rather than
`
`address the merits of the Petition and the Board’s Institution Decision, the POR
`
`presents a misguided interpretation of “broadcast segment” that ignores
`
`fundamental canons of claim construction in an unavailing attempt to salvage the
`
`claims. PO reads numerous limitations into this simple term that are inconsistent
`
`with the claims and specification. PO’s expert provides little help. Statements in
`
`his declaration are conclusory and during deposition, he was unable to provide any
`
`examples that would satisfy his construction. EX1019, 38:17-40:23.
`
`Moreover, little weight should be given to his opinions as he failed to
`
`consider the entire prosecution history, including parent patents, failed to consider
`
`the claim construction briefs and Markman order in the co-pending district court
`
`litigation, and acknowledged having limited broadcast-related experience.
`
`EX1019, 13:18-14:11, 30:24-32:19, 42:4-44:9, All leading to the conclusion that
`
`PO’s “broadcast segment” construction is simply wrong.
`
`The limited additional POR arguments are inconsistent with the ’307 patent
`
`disclosures and those of the prior art. Furthermore, they mischaracterize the
`
`Petition. But as explained below, the Petition demonstrates that Takahisa and
`
`Mackintosh disclose the challenged claims when proper claim constructions are
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`used and even under PO’s flawed claim constructions and mischaracterizations.
`
`Therefore, the Board should find claims 11 and 15-18 of the ’307 patent
`
`unpatentable.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A. Broadcast Segment
`PO proposes that the term “broadcast segment” be construed as a “discretely
`
`identifiable portion of programming as broadcasted.” POR, 17-20. On its face, this
`
`definition is consistent with Petitioner’s construction: “‘a distinguishable piece or
`
`portion of a broadcast stream,’ such as an individual song, speech, or video.” Pet.,
`
`10. Yet PO’s discussion improperly imports additional limitations that should be
`
`rejected. EX1018, ¶¶9-14. The Board should reject these additional limitations
`
`because they amount to an impermissible rewriting of the claims. POR, 17-20; GE
`
`Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`These additional limitations include:
`
`(1)
`
`each broadcast segment must be “discretely identifiable relative to all
`
`other ‘broadcast segments’ transmitted” and “contextually unique to all
`
`others” (POR, 17);
`
`(2) “a broadcast segment can occur once and only once” (id.);
`
`(3)
`
`each broadcast segment “must have a temporal component” (id., 18);
`
`and
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`(4) broadcast segments must differentiate between different instances of
`
`the same song being broadcast multiple times in a day (id.).
`
`The claims and the specification do not support these limitations. EX1018,
`
`¶¶15-31. Further, PO’s admissions contradict the inclusion of such limitations. Id.,
`
`¶¶32-34. Therefore, the Board should reject PO’s construction because it
`
`improperly imports limitations into the claims. Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV
`
`Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[I]t is important not to import
`
`into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v.
`
`3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`The claims do not support PO’s additional limitations.
`1.
`The claims do not support PO’s additional limitations. EX1018, ¶15-20. For
`
`example, claim 16 demonstrates any unique identification of a broadcast segment
`
`is separate from the broadcast segment itself. Id., ¶¶15-17. Therefore, PO’s
`
`requirement that the broadcast segment be uniquely and “discretely identifiable”
`
`by itself is erroneous. Id.; POR, 17.
`
`Claim 16 recites:
`
`The system of claim 11, wherein the data stream further comprises
`data that enables a unique identification of the at least one broadcast
`segment.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`
`EX1001, 16:38-40.1
`
`As seen here, the data that uniquely identifies the broadcast segment is
`
`provided in a separate data stream. EX1018, ¶¶16-17. As claim 11 highlights, the
`
`“data stream” is a separate stream of data from the “broadcast stream” that carries
`
`the “broadcast segment.” EX1001, 15:33-39. Thus, contrary to PO’s assertions, the
`
`broadcast segment is not itself discretely identifiable, but rather is identified using
`
`separate identification data received from the data stream. EX1018, ¶¶16-17. The
`
`broadcast segment is instead simply “‘a distinguishable piece or portion of a
`
`broadcast stream,’ such as an individual song, speech, or video.” Pet., 10. Any
`
`unique or discrete identification is separate from the broadcast segment itself.
`
`EX1018, ¶¶16-17.
`
`The other elements of claim 11 also do not support PO’s construction. For
`
`example, PO points to claim element 11[f], which recites a “temporal position of
`
`the corollary broadcast” and argues that this suggest that “the broadcast segment
`
`must have a temporal component that can distinguish different occurrences of
`
`broadcast segment[s].” POR, 18. But the claim language does not provide such an
`
`inference. EX1018, ¶¶18-20. While claim element 11[f] explains that temporal
`
`position information may be optionally output, there is no suggestion that such
`
`information would be included in the broadcast segment. Id., ¶18. Rather, a person
`
`
`1 All emphasis in this document is added, except where otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have understood this information to be
`
`included in the “data stream” because it carries information about the broadcast
`
`segment, such as “media content identifying data” and/or a “unique identification.”
`
`Id., ¶19; EX1001, 15:33-39, 16:38-40. Therefore, claim element 11[f] does not
`
`support PO’s construction. EX1018, ¶19.
`
`2.
`
`The specification does not support PO’s additional
`limitations.
`The specification uses the term “broadcast segment” twice. EX1001, 5:64-
`
`6:4. Neither of these support PO’s claim construction. Further, none of PO’s cited
`
`passages support broadcast segments that are themselves “discretely identifiable.”
`
`POR, 18-19; EX1018, ¶¶21-31. For example, PO relies on the assignment of a
`
`“unique identifier to each specific broadcast segment or song.” EX1001, 5:64-
`
`6:2.
`
`This statement, however, does not suggest that the broadcast segment itself
`
`includes the unique identifier or is discretely identifiable. Rather, the “unique
`
`identifier” that PO references is transmitted in the separate “data stream” as
`
`indicated by claim 16. EX1001, 16:38-40. Therefore, the assignment of a unique
`
`identifier does not support PO’s construction. EX1018, ¶¶21-23.
`
`PO additionally argues that its construction is motivated by the “purpose of
`
`data mining.” POR, 18 (citing EX1001, 3:10-16, 3:52-55, 9:34-36). First, none of
`
`these passages discuss “broadcast segments” or provide any details supporting
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`PO’s additional “broadcast segment” limitations. EX1018, ¶¶24-29. While the
`
`passages describe “data mining” to track sales transactions, this does not import
`
`any limitations or further narrow the concept of a “broadcast segment.” Id. These
`
`passages do not provide any definition or explanation for a “broadcast segment.”
`
`Id. Second, “data mining” is not relevant to the claimed “receiver” receiving a
`
`broadcast segment. Id. The data mining described in the specification occurs on a
`
`back-end broadcaster system and not on claim 11’s “system.” Id.; EX1001, 3:10-
`
`55, 8:59-65, 10:37-44. Therefore, these passages still do not describe a receiver
`
`performing any data mining or receiving any broadcast segment with “discretely
`
`identifiable” properties. EX1018, ¶¶24-29. Further, the data mining occurs when a
`
`user performs a transaction using the system in claim 11. Id. But to perform such a
`
`transaction—as seen from claim 17—the claimed system transmits “media content
`
`identifying” data, which is separate from the broadcast stream. EX1001, 16:41-46.
`
`Therefore, the claims clearly indicate that transactions are tracked based on
`
`separate media identification data—not any unique identification within a
`
`broadcast segment. EX1018, ¶29.
`
`PO also relies on an example not disclosed in the specification, where a song
`
`may be played three times in a broadcast. POR, 17-18. PO argues that this must
`
`result in three discretely identifiable and different broadcast segments. Id. But
`
`when questioned about this example during his deposition, Dr. Hart admitted that
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`no such example existed in the specification and that he conceived it himself.
`
`EX1019, 60:13-23. Thus, there is no specification support for this requirement to
`
`be present in the claim term “broadcast segment.” EX1018, ¶¶30-31.
`
`PO’s admissions contradict its proposed construction.
`3.
`PO makes a key admission that contradicts PO’s claim construction:
`
`“An individual song” as broadcasted may serve as one example of a
`“broadcast segment” because the broadcast of the song constitutes a
`discretely identifiable portion of programming as broadcasted.
`
`POR, 19.
`While previously advocating for several requirements to constitute a
`
`“broadcast segment,” PO here admits that the broadcast of an individual song is
`
`sufficient. Id. This is the same claim construction provided in the Petition. Pet., 10.
`
`Therefore, PO has contradicted its own narrow construction if the broadcasting of a
`
`song is sufficient to be an example of a broadcast segment. EX1018, ¶¶32-34.
`
`B.
`
`“a receiver configured to receive a broadcast stream comprising
`the at least one broadcast segment and associated media content”
`The Board adopted an interpretation reading a broadcast segment and the
`
`associated media content as “encompassing the same underlying content (e.g., a
`
`song) in two different forms,” with the “broadcast segment” referring to the signal-
`
`form and the “media content” referring to the form “discernable to humans.” DI,
`
`23. PO agrees that the Board’s construction is correct, but again imports its
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`limitations for the term “broadcast segment.” POR, 21-22. Petitioner agrees with
`
`the Board’s interpretation but disagrees with PO’s additional limitations. EX1018,
`
`¶¶35-38; Section II.A. As this interpretation relates to the “receiver” limitation as a
`
`whole, PO’s construction of “broadcast segment” still conflicts with the
`
`understanding that a “broadcast segment” refers to media content in a signal form.
`
`EX1018, ¶¶35-38. That is, PO never explains how “broadcast segments” in signal
`
`form would be discretely identifiable or how a receiver system would determine
`
`that “each broadcast segment is unique from every other broadcast segment.” POR,
`
`22; EX1018, ¶¶35-38. Rather, the claimed “receiver” simply receives a broadcast
`
`stream with a broadcast segment signal and outputs the associated media content.
`
`EX1018, ¶¶35-38. There is no requirement for the claimed system to separately
`
`determine that the broadcast segment is unique. Id.
`
` “associating/associated”
`C.
`The district court determined that the construction for
`
`“associating/associated” should be the “plain and ordinary meaning.” EX3001, 1-2.
`
`PO proposed this interpretation but now argues for different constructions, which
`
`require “‘implementing a link’ between two or more items.’” POR, 22. Such a
`
`formal link is unnecessary to determine the plain and ordinary meaning of the term
`
`“associated.” EX1018, ¶¶39-41. Rather, a POSA would have understood that
`
`“associated” would refer to two concepts that were conceptually connected without
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`the need for a system to store a link. Id. For example, the specification refers to
`
`automotive radios equipped with an APS module 202 and “associated
`
`technologies.” EX1001, 7:27-33. Similarly, the specification refers to “[a]ssociated
`
`books, magazine articles, merchandise and event information” that can be posted
`
`for the user to purchase. Id., 8:12-14. In this manner, the specification uses the
`
`term “associated” with its plain and ordinary meaning to broadly refer to
`
`conceptual connections rather than formally defined and implemented links.
`
`EX1018, ¶¶39-41.
`
`Thus, the Board should apply the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“associating” and “associated.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Regardless, Takahisa and Mackintosh demonstrate that
`
`the claims are unpatentable under PO’s construction. EX1018, ¶41.
`
`“corollary”
`D.
`PO proposes that the term “corollary” should receive its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning and be construed as meaning “correlated.” POR, 23. Petitioner does not
`
`object. EX1018, ¶42.
`
`III. TAKAHISA ANTICIPATES CHALLENGED CLAIMS 11, 15, 16,
`AND 18 (GROUND 1).
`A. Takahisa Discloses the Preamble of Claim 11.
`PO’s argument is entirely premised on its construction of “broadcast
`
`segment.” POR, 33-35; EX1018, ¶¶43-51. But PO conflates concepts that do not
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`distinguish the claims from Takahisa’s teachings. EX1018, ¶¶43-46. For example,
`
`PO argues that Takahisa does not describe “receiving media content identifying
`
`data that discretely identifies a portion of programming as broadcasted.” POR, 34.
`
`But this statement mixes “media content identifying data” with its construction of
`
`“broadcast segment.” Id.; EX1018, ¶¶43-46; EX1001, 15:33-39. PO again
`
`improperly adds another limitation that requires the claimed “system” to actively
`
`extract “broadcast segment information” to identify the broadcast segment prior to
`
`correlating data. POR, 34-35. PO then alleges that Takahisa does not perform a
`
`“correlating step” because it does not separately extract this broadcast segment
`
`information prior to correlating media content identifying data with a broadcast
`
`segment. EX1018, ¶¶43-46. None of this is supported in the claims or
`
`specification. Id.
`
`Despite PO’s attempts to confuse the issue and add an additional
`
`“correlating” step, Takahisa’s teachings of (1) receiving a broadcast segment, (2)
`
`receiving media content identifying data, and (3) correlating this data together
`
`disclose the preamble. Pet., 22-25; POR, 34.
`
`Takahisa’s broadcasted “program material” (such as a song) corresponds to
`
`the claimed “broadcast segment.” Pet., 23-25; EX1004, 1:63-2:9. Along with this
`
`program material, Takahisa also describes receiving “composer, title, and
`
`performer” information, which discloses the claimed “media content identifying
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`data. EX1004, 6:55-7:7, 7:18-21, 9:42-44. Takahisa’s “pyramid address” is used to
`
`correlate the received media content identifying data with the received broadcast
`
`segment. Id., 7:8-21, 9:13-24; see also infra Section III.B. Thus, Takahisa
`
`discloses the preamble under either Petitioner or PO’s stated constructions for
`
`“broadcast segment.” EX1018, ¶¶47-48; see also Section III.B. PO’s alleged
`
`distinctions are without merit because they are premised on limitations that do not
`
`exist in the claims. EX1018, ¶¶11-34.
`
`Moreover, Takahisa’s pyramid address discloses the “correlating” in the
`
`preamble as well as claim element 11[d] even under PO’s construction. Id., ¶¶49-
`
`51. Under PO’s interpretation, a broadcast segment should be discretely
`
`identifiable. POR, 17-20, 36. But PO does not address Takahisa’s “pyramid
`
`address” and that the pyramid address specifically identifies the program material
`
`as broadcasted. EX1004, 9:13-24; Pet., 22-23, 28-29, 39-41. For example,
`
`Takahisa’s pyramid address corresponds to a “particular selection of program
`
`material.” EX1004, 9:13-24. “Thus, if a musical selection is being broadcast, all
`
`data pertaining to that musical selection will have identical pyramid addresses.” Id.
`
`As seen from this description, Takahisa’s pyramid address is specific to the
`
`particular media selection and to the broadcast itself. EX1018, ¶¶49-51. The
`
`pyramid address corresponds to each time program material is selected. Id.
`
`Therefore, Takahisa does not limit the pyramid address to being the same each
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`time a particular song is played. Id. Thus, Takahisa’s pyramid address still
`
`discloses organizing media identifying data based on broadcast segments that are
`
`discretely identifiable. Id. This applies to the preamble and to claim element 11[d].
`
`Lastly, PO has not argued any deficiency with respect to the “receiver”
`
`limitation (claim element 11[a]). EX1018, ¶51. This claim element refers to the
`
`claimed “system” receiving a “broadcast segment” from a broadcast stream. Id.
`
`Without identifying any deficiency, PO has not disputed that Takahisa actually
`
`receives a broadcast segment even under PO’s construction. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Takahisa Discloses Claim Element 11[d]: “each identifying data
`aggregate associated with … the at least one broadcast segment”
`PO premises its claim element 11[d] argument on its construction of
`
`“broadcast segment.” POR, 35-40. PO argues that Takahisa does not “contain any
`
`element discretely identifying a portion of the programming as broadcasted.” POR,
`
`36. Under PO’s construction, PO alleges that Takahisa’s data aggregates—which
`
`organize the media content identifying data elements—“are not associated with the
`
`at least one broadcast segment.” POR, 38-39.
`
`Takahisa discloses this limitation—even if PO’s flawed “broadcast segment”
`
`construction is applied. Pet., 25-27; EX1018, ¶¶52-61. Takahisa’s receiving of
`
`broadcasted program material satisfies the receipt of a broadcast segment. Pet., 25-
`
`27. As this relates to claim element 11[d] and the aggregation of media content
`
`identifying data, Takahisa also associates the received media content identifying
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`data with media content and a broadcast segment. Id. Takahisa aggregates
`
`“composer, title, and performer data” with a particular song. EX1004, 7:18-21. As
`
`depicted in Figure 3, “composer, title, and performer data stored in memory 205”
`
`is organized to correspond to the “program material contemporaneously being
`
`received by receiving system 200.” Id.; see also id., 6:15-33.
`
`EX1004, FIG. 3.
`
`
`
`Takahisa also generates a program history, which also aggregates media
`
`content identifying data with a broadcast segment. Pet., 32-33; EX1004, 8:22-34.
`
`These descriptions disclose claim element 11[d]. EX1018, ¶¶52-57.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`PO provides several additional flawed arguments, but Takahisa still
`
`discloses claim element 11[d] even under PO’s construction. POR, 36-40; EX1018,
`
`¶¶58-61. For example, Takahisa’s pyramid address discretely identifies a broadcast
`
`segment for the reasons explained in Section III.A. This addresses PO’s correlation
`
`argument, which is reiterated from the preamble. POR, 40.
`
`PO also argues that Takahisa’s history aggregate does not disclose the
`
`claimed broadcast segment. POR, 38. But contrary to PO’s analysis, Takahisa’s
`
`history aggregate precisely discloses the tracking of discrete instances of broadcast
`
`segments. Pet., 32-33. For example, Takahisa describes storing data from previous
`
`program selections for later access by the user. EX1004, 8:22-34. A POSA would
`
`have understood that if multiple instances of the same song were stored, Takahisa’s
`
`system would have distinguished between these multiple instances because it
`
`stores a history of “previous selections.” Id.; EX1018, ¶59. This would therefore
`
`distinguish between broadcast segments even under PO’s construction. EX1018,
`
`¶59.
`
`PO also argues that Takahisa’s “running time” does not disclose identifying
`
`a broadcast segment because it does not specify a “particular start time of a portion
`
`of programming.” POR, 37. Not only does this argument introduce yet another
`
`limitation for “broadcast segment,” it mischaracterizes the Petition’s reliance on
`
`Takahisa’s “running time.” Pet., 37-38. The Petition relies on Takahisa’s running
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`time to disclose a “temporal position” of the broadcast segment in claim element
`
`11[f], which PO does not dispute. Id. Therefore, PO’s statements do not identify
`
`any deficiency in Takahisa. EX1018, ¶60.
`
` PO additionally argues that Takahisa does not perform data mining and
`
`would therefore have “no need to aggregate data associated with discretely
`
`identifiable portions of programming as broadcasted.” POR, 39. But as previously
`
`explained, the concept of “data mining” is not relevant to the functionality at the
`
`claimed “system,” which simply receives a broadcast segment. See Section II.A.2.
`
`Therefore, PO’s data mining statements do not identify any deficiency in Takahisa.
`
`EX1018, ¶61.
`
`C. Takahisa Discloses Claim 16.
`PO’s claim 16 arguments are premised on its construction of
`
`“broadcast segment.” POR, 40-44. PO acknowledges that claim 16 recites data that
`
`includes a unique identification of the broadcast segment, then argues that this
`
`requires a “distinction between two broadcast segments with the same media
`
`content.” Id., 41. PO then argues that Takahisa does not disclose broadcast
`
`segments and therefore does not provide a unique identification. Id., 41-42.
`
`PO’s construction of “broadcast segment” should again be rejected. See
`
`Section II.A. The broadcast segment and the unique identification described in
`
`claim 16 do not require distinguishing between different instances of the same
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`media content. EX1018, ¶¶62-63. Rather, a unique identification of a broadcast
`
`segment is satisfied by an identifier that uniquely identifies a distinguishable piece
`
`or portion of a broadcast stream, such as a song. Pet., 10, 40. Takahisa’s pyramid
`
`address does just that. Id., 39-41.
`
`Takahisa describes “data packet 700” which includes pyramid address 710.
`
`EX1004, 9:10-19. The pyramid address is a unique identifier corresponding to the
`
`broadcast segment because it organizes the additional data pertaining to the
`
`received media content. Id.; EX1018, ¶¶64-66. “If a musical selection is being
`
`broadcast, all data pertaining to that musical selection will have identical pyramid
`
`addresses.” EX1004, 9:17-19.
`
`EX1005, FIG. 7.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`As such, Takahisa’s pyramid address discloses the claimed “data that
`
`enables a unique identification of the at least one broadcast segment.” Pet., 39-41.
`
`This pyramid address is further received in a “data stream” because it is provided
`
`with textual media content identifying data (e.g., composer, title, and performer).
`
`Pet., 39-41; EX1004, 6:55-7:7, 7:18-21, 9:42-44. Therefore, Takahisa discloses
`
`claim 16. EX1018, ¶¶64-66.
`
`Takahisa’s pyramid address discloses claim 16 even under PO’s claim
`
`construction. Id. PO argues that Takahisa’s pyramid address does not disclose a
`
`unique identification because it does not provide a “distinction between two
`
`broadcast segments.” POR, 41-42. But this argument is incorrect. See Section
`
`III.A. Takahisa’s pyramid address corresponds to a “musical selection” which
`
`means that the pyramid address is specific to the broadcast itself and corresponds
`
`to each instance where program material is selected. EX1018, ¶¶64-66.
`
`PO additionally argues that Takahisa focuses on “static information” rather
`
`than “dynamic information” and therefore does not disclose claim 16. POR, 43-44.
`
`But this distinction is irrelevant to the actual language of the claim or to Takahisa’s
`
`disclosures. EX1018, ¶66. PO’s discussion does not discuss Takahisa’s pyramid
`
`address and therefore does not identify any deficiency in Takahisa. Id.
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`IV. TAKAHISA RENDERS CLAIM 17 OBVIOUS (GROUND 2).
`PO argues that Takahisa does not render claim 17 obvious because it would
`
`require modifying Takahisa “to a point where Takahisa would no longer work for
`
`its intended purpose.” POR, 44-45. PO, however, provides no explanation for why
`
`this would be the case. EX1018, ¶¶67-68; EX1019, 122:23-124:11. The Board
`
`should reject this argument as purely conclusory and wrong. EX1018, ¶¶67-68.
`
`PO also argues that Takahisa does not disclose the claimed “input,” but
`
`ignores the relevant sections in the Petition explaining that Takahisa’s user display
`
`panel receives a selection and provides an “input.” Pet., 42-44; EX1019, 117:19-
`
`118:3. The Petition further explains why a POSA would have found it obvious to
`
`use the user display panel with a modem to allow a user to execute transactions
`
`with a remote site, which Dr. Hart acknowledges. Pet., 44-48; EX1019, 122:23-
`
`123:4. This would include transmitting a data packet with media content
`
`identifying data to execute the transaction. Id. PO does not address the obviousness
`
`explanation provided in the Petition and therefore has not identified any deficiency
`
`in Ground 2.
`
`V. MACKINTOSH RENDERS OBVIOUS CHALLENGED CLAIMS 11
`AND 15-18 (GROUND 3).
`PO’s Mackintosh-based arguments are similar to its Takahisa-based
`
`arguments, largely relying on its flawed “broadcast segment” construction.
`
`However, PO encounters the additional problem that Mackintosh uses nearly
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`identical language as the ’307 patent to describe aspects of its invention—that is,
`
`Mackintosh refers to each broadcast song or advertisement as a “segment” and
`
`explains that “cut codes” “uniquely identify a segment.” EX1005, 2:50-58, 21:13-
`
`24. PO’s attempts to draw distinctions with Mackintosh’s disclosure are
`
`unavailing. EX1018, ¶¶69-103.
`
`A. Mackintosh Discloses the Preamble of Claim 11.
`PO reiterates much of its previous preamble arguments and premises
`
`Mackintosh’s alleged deficiencies again on its claim construction for “broadcast
`
`segment.” POR, 45-46. PO argues that “Mackintosh does not describe a ‘segment’
`
`as discretely identifying a portion of programming as broadcasted.” POR, 45-46.
`
`Again, the Board should reject PO’s construction as improperly narrow. See
`
`Section II.A. Mackintosh discloses the preamble of claim 11 for the reasons
`
`presented in the Petition. Pet., 49-52. For example, Mackintosh describes
`
`correlating “supplemental materials” with received media content corresponding to
`
`the broadcast segment. Id., 51-52; EX1005, 2:45-58, 5:67-6:4, 22:55-60. This
`
`therefore discloses the preamble of claim 11. Pet., 49-52. EX1018, ¶¶71-77.
`
`Even under PO’s construction, however, Mackintosh discloses a “broadcast
`
`segment” and the preamble of claim 11. Pet., 49-52. While PO addresses the
`
`relevant passages from Mackintosh, PO appears to ignore Mackintosh’s literal
`
`identification of “segments” using an “event code” or “cut code” to uniquely
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00712
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,307
`identify the segments. Id., 49-52, 71-75; EX1005, 2:45-58, 5:18-6:4, 21:13-24.
`
`Specifically, Mackintosh states that “each song or advertisement … comprises a
`
`distinct segment [with a] cut code corresponding to and uniquely identifying a
`
`segment.” EX1005, 21:18-34.
`
`As seen fr