UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`STRATOSAUDIO, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY MADISETTI IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’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
`
`VW EX1018
`VW v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`
`I.
`II.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 3
`A.
`Broadcast Segment ................................................................................ 4
`1.
`The claims of the ’028 patent do not support the additional
`limitations suggested by Dr. Hart. .............................................. 6
`The specification of the ’028 patent does not support the
`additional limitations suggested by Dr. Hart. ............................. 8
`Dr. Hart provides opinions that contradict the proposed
`construction. ..............................................................................13
`“receiving a broadcast stream comprising the at least one broadcast
`segment and associated media content” ..............................................15
`“associating/associated” ......................................................................17
`C.
`“corollary” ...........................................................................................18
`D.
`III. THE GROUNDS PRESENTED IN MY PREVIOUS DECLARATION
`DISCLOSE ALL OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS. .......................................................................................................19
`A. Ground 1: Takahisa Anticipates Claims 11, 14-16, and 18. ...............19
`1.
`Takahisa Discloses the Preamble of Claim 11 - “A method for
`correlating media content identifying data with at least one
`broadcast segment received by a communication device” .......19
`Takahisa Discloses Claim Element 11[d] - “storing in an
`electronic memory of the communication device, at a minimum,
`media content identifying data elements into identifying data
`aggregates, each identifying data aggregate associated with at
`least one of the plurality of media content and the at least one
`broadcast segment,” ..................................................................25
`Takahisa Discloses Claim 16 – “The method of claim 11,
`wherein the data stream further comprises data that enables a
`unique identification of the at least one broadcast segment.” ..30
`Ground 2: Mackintosh Renders Obvious Claims 11, 14-16, and 18. .33
`1. Mackintosh Discloses the Preamble of Claim 11 - “A method
`for correlating media content identifying data with at least one
`broadcast segment received by a communication device,” ......34
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`2. Mackintosh Discloses Claim Element 11[d] - “storing in an
`electronic memory of the communication device, at a minimum,
`media content identifying data elements into identifying data
`aggregates, each identifying data aggregate associated with at
`least one of the plurality of media content and the at least one
`broadcast segment” ...................................................................38
`3. Mackintosh Renders Obvious Claim 11. ..................................46
`4. Mackintosh Discloses Claim 16 – “The method of claim 11,
`wherein the data stream fur ther comprises data that enables a
`unique identification of the at least one broadcast segment.” ..52
`IV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................58
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`
`I.
`
`I, Dr. Vijay Madisetti, declare as follows:
`INTRODUCTION
`I am the same Dr. Vijay Madisetti who submitted a prior declaration
`1.
`
`(EX1003) in this matter, which I understand was filed on April 16, 2021. I have
`
`been retained on behalf of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. for the above-
`
`captioned inter partes review proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that the Patent Owner has submitted a response in this
`
`case. I also understand that the Patent Owner’s expert witness, Dr. John C. Hart,
`
`has submitted a declaration in support of the Patent Owner’s response. I have been
`
`asked to provide my technical review, analysis, and insight regarding both the
`
`Patent Owner’s response and Dr. Hart’s declaration in support thereof.
`
`3. My background and qualifications were provided in paragraphs 5-17
`
`of my previous declaration, and my CV was provided as an appendix to EX1003.
`
`My statements in paragraphs 18-19 of my prior declaration regarding my review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028 (“’028 patent”) and related materials remain unchanged,
`
`as do my understandings of the relevant legal principles stated in paragraphs 20-28.
`
`4.
`
`Since my prior declaration, I have reviewed and considered the
`
`following additional materials:
`
`Paper Description
`16
`Decision Granting Institution
`28
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`
`Exhibit Description
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. John C. Hart, taken March 31, 2022
`1019
`2019
`Declaration of Dr. John C. Hart dated January 24, 2022
`Excerpt from Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary
`2020
`(2nd ed. 1998)
`Claim Construction Order, StratosAudio Inc. v. Volkswagen Group
`of America, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-01131-ADA (W.D. Tex. September
`22, 2021), ECF No. 60.
`
`3001
`
`
`
`5.
`
`I have also considered all other materials cited herein. My work on
`
`this case is being billed at my normal hourly rate, with reimbursement for actual
`
`expenses. My compensation is not contingent upon the outcome of this inter partes
`
`review proceeding.
`
`6.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed and am familiar with all
`
`the references cited herein. I have reviewed and am familiar with the ’028 patent
`
`and its prosecution history. I confirm that to the best of my knowledge the
`
`accompanying exhibits are true and accurate copies of what they purport to be, and
`
`that an expert in the field would reasonably rely on them to formulate opinions
`
`such as those set forth in this declaration.
`
`7.
`
`In his declaration, Dr. Hart makes several statements regarding the
`
`’028 patent, the prior art references, and the relevant technology at issue in this
`
`proceeding, which I believe to be inaccurate and misleading. My responses to these
`
`statements are detailed below.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`Regardless of whether I use “I” or person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`8.
`
`(“POSA”) during my technical analysis below, all of my statements and opinions
`
`are always to be understood to be based on how a POSA would have understood or
`
`read a document at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`I first turn to the area of claim construction. In my opening
`9.
`
`declaration, submitted in support of the Petition for inter partes review directed to
`
`the ’028 patent, I set forth my understanding of claim construction—namely that,
`
`during an inter partes review, claims are to be construed in light of the
`
`specification as would be read by a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the
`
`time the application was filed, and that claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art in the context of the entire disclosure.
`
`10. Throughout this declaration, I will address the opinions presented by
`
`Dr. Hart in his declaration, but my analysis applies equally to the Patent Owner
`
`Response (POR). Upon reviewing Dr. Hart’s declaration, Dr. Hart appears to add
`
`several additional limitations to the term “broadcast segment.” I believe, however,
`
`that Dr. Hart proposes claim interpretations that violate certain well-established
`
`claim construction principles by improperly interpreting the scope of the term
`
`“broadcast segment” in view of the ’028 patent’s specification. Dr. Hart also
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`provides constructions for several additional claim terms, which I also address
`
`below.
`
`A. Broadcast Segment
`In my previous declaration, I explained that that the term “broadcast
`11.
`
`segment” should be construed to mean “a distinguishable piece or portion of a
`
`broadcast stream,” such as an individual song speech or video. EX1003, ¶61. In
`
`analysis this term and construction, Dr. Hart has proposed an alternative
`
`construction of a “discretely identifiable portion of programming as broadcasted.”
`
`EX2019, ¶65. In comparing the two proposed constructions, Dr. Hart’s
`
`construction appears to be generally consistent with the one that I previously
`
`proposed. Upon further study of Dr. Hart’s explanation, however, his construction
`
`appears to add several additional limitations to how the term “broadcast segment”
`
`should be interpreted. EX2019, ¶¶61-65. I do not agree with these additional
`
`limitations. A POSA would not have understood the term “broadcast segment” to
`
`include of Dr. Hart’s proposed modifications. The Board should therefore not
`
`interpret the term “broadcast segment” to include these limitations.
`
`12. Specifically, Dr. Hart appears to add the following requirements to the
`
`claim term:
`
`each broadcast segment must be “discretely identifiable relative
`(1)
`to all other ‘broadcast segments’ transmitted” and “contextually unique
`to all others” (EX2019, ¶61);
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`“a ‘broadcast segment’ is an identifiably unique occurrence”
`(2)
`(EX2019, ¶61);
`
`each broadcast segment “must have a temporal component”
`(3)
`(EX2019, ¶63); and
`
`(4) broadcast segments must differentiate between different
`instances of the same song being broadcast multiple times per day
`(EX2019, ¶¶61-62).
`
`13. Dr. Hart summarizes these limitations and states that a broadcast
`
`segment must be able to differentiate between a song that is played multiple times
`
`per day. EX2019, ¶¶61-62. Dr. Hart states that a “POSITA would understand this
`
`situation should result in three different broadcast segments, one for each instance
`
`the song was broadcasted.” EX2019, ¶¶61-62.
`
`14. Upon reviewing claim 11 as well as the other claims and the
`
`specification, a POSA would have understood that these limitations are not present
`
`in the claims. As I will further explain below, the claims and the specification do
`
`not support Dr. Hart’s interpretation. Additionally, Dr. Hart appears to take
`
`contradictory positions which demonstrate why his proposed construction is
`
`incorrect. For example, I understand that Dr. Hart admitted that his example of
`
`differentiating between three instances of the same song was an example that he
`
`created and is not found in the specification. EX1019, 60:13-23. Based on all of
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`these factors, a POSA would not have interpreted the term “broadcast segment” in
`
`the way that Dr. Hart proposes.
`
`1.
`
`The claims of the ’028 patent do not support the additional
`limitations suggested by Dr. Hart.
`15. At the outset, claim 11 and the other claims of the ’028 patent do not
`
`support the limitations that Dr. Hart has proposed to add to the term “broadcast
`
`segment.” One of the clearest examples of this discrepancy is claim 16. Claim 16
`
`depends from claim 11 and recites:
`
`The method of claim 11, wherein the data stream further comprises
`data that enables a unique identification of the at least one broadcast
`segment.
`
`EX1001, 16:25-27.1
`
`16. As seen here, claim 16 recites any unique identification of a broadcast
`
`segment as being separate from the broadcast segment itself. This can be seen from
`
`the “data stream” including the data that enables the unique identification of the
`
`broadcast segment. Based on this understanding, contrary to Dr. Hart’s
`
`interpretation where the broadcast segment is in itself “discretely identifiable,”
`
`claim 16 demonstrates that any unique identification is received data separate from
`
`the broadcast segment.
`
`
`1 All emphasis in this document is added, except where otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`17. To further explain, claim 16 recites the data that uniquely identifies
`
`the broadcast segment is provided in a separate data stream. The “data stream” is
`
`described in independent claim 11 as being a stream of data separate from the
`
`“broadcast stream” that carries the “broadcast segment.” EX1001, 15:24-29. When
`
`understanding both claims together, a POSA would have understood that the
`
`broadcast segment is not itself discretely identifiable. Rather, the broadcast
`
`segment is identified using separate identification data received from the claimed
`
`“data stream.” In this manner, the correct construction for the term “broadcast
`
`segment” is what I have provided in my previous declaration: a “distinguishable
`
`piece or portion of a broadcast stream,” such as an individual song, speech, or
`
`video. EX1003, ¶61. As seen from dependent claim 16, and unique or discrete
`
`identification of the broadcast segment is received separately from the broadcast
`
`segment itself.
`
`18. The other portion of claim 11 referenced by Dr. Hart also does not
`
`support his interpretation. EX2019, ¶63. For example, Dr. Hart refers to claim
`
`element 11[f], which recites a “temporal position of the corollary broadcast.” Dr.
`
`Hart argues that this language “supports a POSITA’s understanding that the
`
`broadcast segment must have a temporal component that can distinguish different
`
`occurrences of [a] broadcast segment, even when the portion of programming
`
`contains the same media.” EX2019, ¶63. Upon review of the entirety of claim
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`element 11[f], however, a POSA would have recognized that this “temporal
`
`position” is an optional aspect of the claims. That is, the claimed “providing” may
`
`optionally output “a temporal position,” but the claim does not require such an
`
`output. In this manner, there is no suggestion that temporal position information
`
`must be or would be included in the broadcast segment itself.
`
`19.
`
`Instead, similar to the analysis of claim 16, a POSA would have
`
`understood the temporal position information to be included in claim 11’s “data
`
`stream.” The claimed “data stream” carries information about the broadcast
`
`segment, such as “media content identifying data” and/or a “unique identification.”
`
`EX1001, 15:24-29, 16:25-27. In this context, a POSA would have understood that
`
`temporal position information would be option. Thus, claim element 11[f] does not
`
`support Dr. Hart’s construction for “broadcast segment.”
`
`20. When examining the claims of the ’028 patent, a POSA would have
`
`understood that Dr. Hart’s proposed construction is incorrect.
`
`2.
`
`The specification of the ’028 patent does not support the
`additional limitations suggested by Dr. Hart.
`21. The specification also does not support limiting the term “broadcast
`
`segment” in the way proposed by Dr. Hart. For example, Dr. Hart cites two major
`
`portions of the specification, but these cited portions do not support the concept of
`
`broadcast segments being “discretely identifiable.” For example, Dr. Hart relies on
`
`the following passage from the specification:
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`As shown in FIG. 1, a radio station 140, using either a standard radio
`automation system for tracking of music content which is being
`broadcast, or a data-enabled audio player, broadcasts audio material
`and synchronously sends RBDS/RDS or similar data to an APS server
`144 that assigns a unique identifier to each specific broadcast
`segment or song.
`
`EX1001, 5:64-6:2.
`
`22. As seen from this passage, the specification describes assigning a
`
`“unique identifier” to each broadcast segment or song. This statement therefore
`
`describes two distinct concepts: (1) the unique identifier and (2) the broadcast
`
`segment. These two distinct concepts therefore do not suggest that that the
`
`broadcast segment itself includes the unique identifier or is discretely identifiable.
`
`Rather, the unique identifier is a separate piece of data that is distinct from the data
`
`within the broadcast segment.
`
`23. This is clear from the language recited in claim 16 and as I previously
`
`described above. As seen from claim 16, the “data that enables a unique
`
`identification of the at least one broadcast segment” is transmitted in a separate
`
`“data stream.” EX1001, 16:25-27. In this manner, Dr. Hart’s reference to assigning
`
`a unique identifier to a broadcast segment does not provide any specification
`
`support for the construction.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`24. Dr. Hart additionally refers to “data mining” and provides several
`
`citations arguing that a “broadcast segment” would be limited to further the
`
`purpose of data mining. EX2019, ¶62 (citing EX1001, 3:10-16, 3:52-55, 9:34-36).
`
`These passages, however, do not support limiting the term “broadcast segment” in
`
`the way proposed by Dr. Hart.
`
`25. For example, the passages recite:
`
`In one embodiment, each broadcaster has an RBDS/RDS or similar
`technology enabled server onsite to, for example, generate RBDS/RDS
`or equivalent code for inclusion in the broadcast, validate and route
`purchase information to the user's wireless carrier for billing, monitor
`online sales transactions for data mining, or route validated purchases
`to licensed creative content providers.
`
`EX1001, 3:8-14.
`
`In one embodiment, activity of each sale using the above system is
`tracked for the purposes of aggregating data or "Data Mining" for
`sale to interested parties such as trade publications and record
`companies.
`
`EX1001, 3:52-55.
`
`In one embodiment, activity of each sale using the above system is
`tracked for the purposes of aggregating data or "Data Mining" for
`sale to interested parties such as trade publications and record
`companies.
`
`EX1001, 9:34-37.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`26. While the passages describe “data mining” to track sales transactions,
`
`the passages do not describe “broadcast segments.” Further, the passages do not
`
`import any limitations or further narrow the concept of a “broadcast segment.”
`
`Specifically, the passages do not discuss “broadcast segments” or provide any
`
`details explaining the structure of a broadcast or the components of a broadcast
`
`segment. Therefore, the data mining passages do not provide any definition or
`
`explanation for a “broadcast segment.”
`
`27. Additionally, the specification’s discussion of data mining is not
`
`relevant to the functionality of the “receiving” as recited in claim 11. Claim 11
`
`simply requires receiving a broadcast segment. Therefore, the method recited in
`
`claim 11 does not require the data mining functionality described in the passages.
`
`Actually, the data mining in the cited passages occurs on a back-end broadcaster
`
`system and not on the “communication device” recited in claim 11. EX1001, 3:8-
`
`55, 8:59-65, 10:37-44. For example, the specification refers to the “broadcaster”
`
`using RBDS/RDS to transmit data as the system that performs the data mining.
`
`EX1001, 3:8-55, 8:59-65, 10:37-44. Based on this understanding, the passages
`
`cited by Dr. Hart do not describe a communication system that receives a broadcast
`
`segment to further perform any data mining or to receive a broadcast segment with
`
`“discretely identifiable” properties.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`I also note that the data mining described in the specification occurs
`
`28.
`
`when a user performs a transaction. Claim 17 (which depends from claim 11),
`
`however, refers to the communication device recited in claim 11 transmitting
`
`“media content identifying” data to the server when performing a transaction.
`
`EX1001, 16:28-32. Specifically, claim 17 recites:
`
`17. The method of claim 11, further comprising: selecting the at least
`one broadcast segment; preparing a data packet comprising at least
`one of the media content identifying elements; and communicating
`the data packet to a server.
`
`EX1001, 16:28-32.
`
`29. As I previously explained, claim 11 explains that the media content
`
`identifying data referenced in claim 17 is received by the communication device
`
`from a “data stream.” This “data stream” is separate from the “broadcast stream”
`
`recited in claim, which delivers the “broadcast segment” to the communication
`
`device. EX1001, 15:21-29. Therefore, despite Dr. Hart’s “data mining” theory, the
`
`claims still demonstrate that transactions are tracked based on the media content
`
`identifying data rather than any unique identification within a broadcast segment.
`
`30. To additionally support his construction, I understand that Dr. Hart
`
`has also created an example that he admits is not present in the specification.
`
`EX1019, 60:13-23. Specifically, this refers to Dr. Hart’s example of a song that is
`
`played three times in a broadcast. EX2019, ¶61. Dr. Hart argues that the claims
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`would require three discretely identifiable and different broadcast segments.
`
`EX2019, ¶61. I understand that Dr. Hart admitted, however, that no such example
`
`exists in the specification and that he personally conceived of the example.
`
`EX1019, 60:13-23. As such, no specification support exists for this example or
`
`functionality. Additionally no specification support exists for including such
`
`limitations in the claim term “broadcast segment.”
`
`31. Therefore, for the reasons that I have explained above, the
`
`specification does not support Dr. Hart’s construction for the claim term
`
`“broadcast segment.”
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Hart provides opinions that contradict the proposed
`construction.
`32. Dr. Hart provides some additional opinions that appear to contradict
`
`his proposed construction. For example, Dr. Hart states:
`
`Furthermore, there is no requirement that a broadcast segment be
`distinguished as an individual song, speech or video, as it could
`correspond to a portion of a song, speech or video. A POSITA would
`understand
`these examples of song, speech or video
`to be
`demonstrative but not limiting.
`
`EX2019, ¶64.
`
`33. As seen here, Dr. Hart appears to admit that a song is demonstrative
`
`of a broadcast segment. EX2019, ¶64. Although Dr. Hart has argued that several
`
`additional limitations are required, Dr. Hart here states that the broadcast of an
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`individual song sufficiently discloses a broadcast segment. EX2019, ¶64. This is
`
`the same and comports with the construction that I provided in my previous
`
`declaration: “a distinguishable piece or portion of a broadcast stream,” such as an
`
`individual song speech or video. EX1003, ¶61. Dr. Hart’s statement that a song is
`
`demonstrative of a broadcast segment therefore contradicts his narrow
`
`construction.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`34. Overall, I disagree with Dr. Hart’s constructions for the reasons that I
`
`have explained above. Rather that adopting his construction, the Board should
`
`adopt the construction that I presented in my previous declaration: “a
`
`distinguishable piece or portion of a broadcast stream,” such as an individual song
`
`speech or video. EX1003, ¶61. As I will further explain below, the majority of Dr.
`
`Hart’s arguments related to Takahisa and Mackintosh are premised on the
`
`construction of “broadcast segment” that he has provided. While I do not believe
`
`that Dr. Hart has applied the correct construction to his analysis, Takahisa and
`
`Mackintosh both disclose and render obvious the challenged claims for the reasons
`
`presented in my previous declaration. EX1003, ¶¶103-245. Takahisa and
`
`Mackintosh also disclose and render obvious the challenged claims even under
`
`Dr. Hart’s construction.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`“receiving a broadcast stream comprising the at least one
`broadcast segment and associated media content”
`I understand that in the Institution Decision, the Board requested that
`
`B.
`
`35.
`
`the parties address several claim terms, including “receiving a broadcast stream
`
`comprising the at least one broadcast segment and associated media content,”
`
`“corollary,” and “associating/associated.” DI, 22-23. With specific reference to the
`
`“receiving” limitation, the Board requested that the parties address the correct
`
`interpretation of the conjunction “and” contextually. DI, 22-23. When performing
`
`its analysis during the institution stage, 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.
`
`36. Upon reviewing Dr. Hart’s declaration, I understand that Dr. Hart
`
`agrees with the Board’s construction. EX2019, ¶¶68-69. Dr. Hart, however, again
`
`appears to include the additional limitations introduced for “broadcast segment.”
`
`EX2019, ¶¶68-69. For example, Dr. Hart continues to argues that “a POSITA
`
`would understand the clause to require the ‘broadcast segment’ as ‘a discretely
`
`identifiable portion of programming as broadcasted’ and the ‘associated media
`
`content’ being the media content after it has been translated from signal-form into
`
`a form that is discernible to humans.” EX2019, ¶69.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`37. While I agree with the Board’s interpretation, I disagree with the
`
`additional limitations added by Dr. Hart for the reasons that I previously explained.
`
`See Section II.A. Because the analysis requested by the Board still concerns the
`
`“receiving” limitation as a whole, the construction of “broadcast segment” as
`
`presented by Dr. Hart continues to conflict with the understanding that a
`
`“broadcast segment” refers to media content in a signal form. That is, a POSA
`
`would not have understood that a signal would necessary include the discrete
`
`identification that Dr. Hart suggests is included in the broadcast segment. Dr. Hart
`
`additionally does not explain how “broadcast segments” in signal form would be
`
`discretely identifiable from one another. And as I previously explained, Dr. Hart
`
`also does not explain how a communication device would determine that broadcast
`
`segments are “contextually unique to all others.” EX2019, ¶68. Instead, a POSA
`
`would have understood that claim language indicates that the claimed “receiving”
`
`step is practiced when receiving a broadcast stream with a broadcast segment
`
`signal. The claim later refers to outputting the associated media content for a user
`
`to consume. Claim 11 does not recite or include a requirement that requires
`
`separately determining that the broadcast segment is unique.
`
`38.
`
`In this manner, I agree with the Board’s interpretation of the full
`
`“receiving” limitation but still disagree with Dr. Hart’s construction of a
`
`“broadcast segment” because it is inconsistent with the claim language itself.
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`Regarding the other elements of the “receiving” limitation, the explanation
`
`provided in my previous declaration is still applicable. EX1003, ¶¶67-75.
`
`C.
`39.
`
`“associating/associated”
`In considering the terms “associating” and “associated,” I understand
`
`that a district court has provided a claim construction order indicating that the
`
`terms should receive their “plain and ordinary meaning.” EX3001, 1-2. I
`
`understand that Dr. Hart has proposed that “the terms are used in their ordinary
`
`manner in the context of the ’028 patent to mean an implemented link between two
`
`or more items (such as data, broadcast segments, and media content).” EX2019,
`
`¶70. In presenting this interpretation, Dr. Hart appears to seek a special definition
`
`that requires a “link [that] is formal, intentional and requires implementation by
`
`claim 11.” EX2019, ¶71.
`
`40. A POSA, however, would not have interpreted the claim to require
`
`such a formal link to determine the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. Based
`
`on the usage in the specification, a POSA would have understood that “associated”
`
`would referred to two concepts that were conceptually connected without the need
`
`to store a link. See, e.g., EX1001, 7:27-33, 8:12-14. For example, the specification
`
`describes automotive radios equipped with an APS module 202 and “associated
`
`technologies.” EX1001, 7:27-33. This general use of the term “associated”
`
`therefore does not recite a specific link. Similarly, the specification also refers to
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`“[a]ssociated books, magazine articles, merchandise and event information” that
`
`can be posted for the user to purchase. EX1001, 8:12-14. This passage also
`
`demonstrates that the term is used generally and can refer to a general relationship
`
`between concepts. Therefore, in view of the specification’s expansive use of the
`
`term, a POSA would have understood the term “associated” under its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning to broadly refer to conceptual connections rather than formally
`
`defined and implemented links.
`
`41. Based on this understanding, the Board should apply the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of the term rather than Dr. Hart’s interpretation requiring a
`
`formal link between concepts that are “associated.” Regardless of the interpretation
`
`adopted by the Board, however, Takahisa and Mackintosh still demonstrate that the
`
`claims are unpatentable even under Dr. Hart’s construction for the reasons that I
`
`explain below.
`
`D.
`42.
`
`“corollary”
`I understand that Dr. Hart interprets the term “corollary” to have its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning and to be construed as meaning “correlated.” EX2019,
`
`¶72. I do not object to this understanding. As I further explained below, the claims
`
`are still unpatentable in view of Takahisa and Mackintosh under this construction.
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`III. THE GROUNDS PRESENTED IN MY PREVIOUS DECLARATION
`DISCLOSE ALL OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS.
`A. Ground 1: Takahisa Anticipates Claims 11, 14-16, and 18.
`43. With respect to Ground 1, Dr. Hart targets three concepts when
`
`alleging that Takahisa is deficient. Specifically, Dr. Hart argues that Takahisa does
`
`not disclose (1) the preamble of claim 11, (2) claim element 11[d], and (3) claim
`
`16. As I explain below, I disagree with Dr. Hart’s conclusions with respect to these
`
`claim elements. Dr. Hart’s analysis is generally premised on the claim construction
`
`of “broadcast segment” that he has proposed. I disagree with this claim
`
`construction for the reasons that I explained in Section II.A. In each of the
`
`following sections, I reiterate Dr. Hart’s claim construction should not be adopted
`
`and why Takahisa discloses the claim element under the proper construction
`
`presented in my previous declaration. EX1003, ¶¶58-61. Additionally, I explain
`
`why Takahisa still discloses each claim element even under Dr. Hart’s proposed
`
`construction. Therefore, Takahisa still discloses all of the elements of the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`1.
`
`Takahisa Discloses the Preamble of Claim 11 - “A method
`for correlating media content identifying data with at least
`one broadcast segment received by a communication
`device”
`44. Dr. Hart’s analysis of Takahisa with respect to the preamble of claim
`
`11 appears to be premised on his proposed construction for “broadcast segment.”
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. V