UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`STRATOSAUDIO, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. TIM A. WILLIAMS 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 EX1016
`VW v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00721
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`I.
`II.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 3
`A.
`The Additional Limitations Added to the Claims ................................ 4
`B.
`“First Receiver Module” and “Second Receiver Module” ................... 6
`1.
`Dr. Moon Provides an Interpretation But Does Not Provide a
`Claim Construction .................................................................... 7
`The ’081 Patent’s Specification Explains that “Modules” Are
`Not Necessarily Separate Physical Components ....................... 8
`The Claimed “Output System” Does Not Limit the Claimed
`First and Second Receiver Modules ......................................... 15
`III. THE GROUNDS PRESENTED IN MY PREVIOUS DECLARATION
`DISCLOSE ALL OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS. ...................................................................................................... 20
`A. Ground 1: Mackintosh ........................................................................ 20
`1. Mackintosh Discloses the Claimed “Second Receiver Module”
` .................................................................................................. 20
`2. Mackintosh Discloses the Claimed “Output System” .............. 26
`3. Mackintosh Discloses “Data Enabling the Identification of a
`Specific Instance of the First Media Content. .......................... 30
`4. Mackintosh Discloses Claim 10 ............................................... 34
`Ground 3: DeWeese ........................................................................... 36
`1.
`DeWeese Discloses “Data Enabling the Identification of a
`Specific Instance of the First Media Content” ......................... 36
`DeWeese Discloses the Claimed “Second Receiver Module” . 39
`DeWeese Discloses the Claimed “Output System” ................. 41
`DeWeese Discloses the Claimed “Second Media Content
`Received Discretely From the First Media Content” ............... 43
`DeWeese Discloses Claim 10 .................................................. 45
`5.
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 47
`
`
`B.
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`I.
`
`I, Dr. Tim A. Williams, declare as follows:
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I am the same Dr. Tim A. Williams who submitted a prior declaration
`
`(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. Todd K. Moon,
`
`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. Moon’s declaration in support thereof.
`
`3. My background and qualifications were provided in paragraphs 5-14
`
`of my previous declaration, and my CV was provided as an appendix to EX1003.
`
`My statements in paragraphs 15-16 of my prior declaration regarding my review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081 (“’081 patent”) and related materials remain unchanged,
`
`as do my understandings of the relevant legal principles stated in paragraphs 17-25.
`
`4.
`
`Since my prior declaration, I have reviewed and considered the
`
`following additional materials:
`
`Paper Description
`16
`Decision Granting Institution
`27
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`1017
`
`Exhibit Description
`Deposition Transcript of Todd K. Moon, taken March 24, 2022.
`1015
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0183059 to Noreen et al.
`(“Noreen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,349,329 to Brandt et al. (“Brandt”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0001965 to Cao et al. (“Cao”)
`Declaration of Dr. Todd Moon dated January 14, 2022
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Tim A. Williams dated January 6, 2022
`U.S. Patent 8,875,188 B2 issued October 28, 2014
`I have also considered all other materials cited herein. My work on
`
`1018
`1019
`2019
`2020
`2021
`5.
`
`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 ’081 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. Moon makes several statements regarding the
`
`’081 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. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`Regardless of whether I use “I” or “POSA” during my technical
`
`8.
`
`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
`9.
`I first turn to the area of claim construction. In my opening
`
`declaration, submitted in support of the Petition for inter partes review directed to
`
`the ’081 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. Moon in his declaration, but my analysis applies equally to the Patent Owner
`
`Response (POR). Upon reviewing Dr. Moon’s declaration, Dr. Moon appears to
`
`add additional limitations to several of the claim elements. I believe, however, that
`
`Dr. Moon proposes claim interpretations that violate certain well-established claim
`
`construction principles by improperly interpreting the scope of several claim
`
`limitations of the ’081 patent. I address these claim terms below.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`A. The Additional Limitations Added to the Claims
`11. Dr. Moon appears to have added several additional limitations to the
`
`claims based on his interpretations of the claims. Specifically, Dr. Moon has added
`
`additional limitations to the following terms: “first receiver module,” “second
`
`receiver module,” “an output of the first receiver module or the second receiver
`
`module,” and “data enabling the identification of a specific instance of the first
`
`media content from a first broadcast medium.” I have summarized these additional
`
`limitations in the table below using brackets and underlining, but do not believe
`
`that such limitations should be added to the claims. I am informed by counsel that
`
`underlining claim language is a common way to identify subject matter that has
`
`been added, and that adding double brackets around language is generally used to
`
`identify subject matter that has been deleted. I use this same style in the table
`
`below. As I further explain in this declaration, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSA”) would not have interpreted the claims to include these additional
`
`limitations.
`
`Additional Claim Limitations Added by Dr. Moon’s
`Interpretation of the Claims
`
`“a first receiver module configured to receive at least a first
`media content … a second receiver module, [separate and]
`distinct from the first media content, configured to receive
`at least a second media content …”
`
`
`Where Dr. Moon’s
`Arguments Can Be
`Found
`EX2019, ¶¶50-55,
`68-75, 100-03
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Additional Claim Limitations Added by Dr. Moon’s
`Interpretation of the Claims
`
`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`Where Dr. Moon’s
`Arguments Can Be
`Found
`EX2019, ¶¶76-80,
`104-08
`
`“an output system configured to present concurrently the
`first media content and the second media content on [[an]]
`a first output of the first receiver module [[or]] and to
`present either the first media content or the second media
`content on a second output of the second receiver module”
`
`“data enabling the identification of a specific first instance
`of the first media content from a first broadcast medium
`and a specific second instance of the first media content
`from the first broadcast medium, and further enabling the
`first specific instance to be distinguished from the second
`specific instance, wherein the data is dynamically
`determined at the time of broadcast by a main facility”
`
`12. Regarding Dr. Moon’s interpretation of the first and second receiver
`
`EX2019, ¶¶81-86,
`98-99
`
`modules being separate and distinct, I note that Dr. Moon’s interpretation is
`
`unclear and ambiguous because it does not define what it means for these two
`
`modules to be “distinct.” For example, it is unclear whether distinct receiver
`
`modules requires separation of physical components within a single device,
`
`physically separate devices, logical separation, or some other kind of separation.
`
`13. Rather than adding the additional limitations proposed by Dr. Moon,
`
`the claims are already clear and unambiguous in their original form. A POSA
`
`would have understood the claim terms to have their plain and ordinary meaning in
`
`light of the specification. No additional limitations are needed to understand the
`
`breadth of the claims.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`I note that the majority of Dr. Moon’s arguments are premised on the
`
`14.
`
`language and claim interpretations that I have summarized in the table above.
`
`Because these interpretations are not recited in the claims and a POSA would not
`
`have understood the claims to recite these additional limitations, Dr. Moon’s
`
`analysis and arguments related to the prior art are misplaced.
`
`B.
`“First Receiver Module” and “Second Receiver Module”
`15. Based on my review of the POR, Dr. Moon’s declaration, and the
`
`Board’s Institution Decision, Dr. Moon appears to reapply the claim interpretation
`
`previously presented in its POPR. In particular, Dr. Moon argues that a “first
`
`receiver module” and “second receiver module” requires “two separate and distinct
`
`receiver modules.” POR, 12-15; POPR, 23-25; EX2019, ¶¶50-55. Upon reviewing
`
`the Institution Decision, I understand that the Board has already disagreed with this
`
`interpretation and has explained that “the specification of the ’081 Patent does not
`
`support Patent Owner’s assertion that the recited modules must necessarily be
`
`separate physical components.” DI, 43. As I further explain below, the Board
`
`correctly interpreted the claim without needing to import the additional limitations
`
`proposed by Dr. Moon. A POSA would have also interpreted the claim in this
`
`same way for the reasons that I explain below.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`1.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`Dr. Moon Provides an Interpretation But Does Not Provide
`a Claim Construction
`I note that Dr. Moon does not explicitly provide a claim construction
`
`16.
`
`for the terms “first receiver module” or “second receiver module.” See EX2019,
`
`¶¶50-55; EX1015, 74:1-75:17, 78:22-79:4. Rather, Dr. Moon presents a claim
`
`interpretation that the claims require “two distinct receiver modules” and that they
`
`be “two separate and distinct receiver modules.” EX2019, ¶¶50-55. This
`
`interpretation narrows the scope of the claims.
`
`17. A problem arises with this claim interpretation, however, because it
`
`does not clearly identify what the claim includes or excludes. That is, it would be
`
`unclear to a POSA what the limitation of “two separate and distinct receiver
`
`modules” would encompass. In this manner, the interpretation introduces
`
`additional ambiguity to the claims. I understand that in order to resolve this
`
`ambiguity, Dr. Moon was asked to elaborate on the scope of “separate and distinct
`
`receiver modules.” EX1015, 80:10-81:3. For example, he was asked whether this
`
`required that the receiver modules were physically separated in space, but he did
`
`not provide a clear delineation of whether such a limitation is required. Id.
`
`18.
`
`In this manner, Dr. Moon’s claim interpretation appears to add
`
`limitations that would further add ambiguity into the language of the claims.
`
`Because a POSA would not have interpreted the claims to further add this
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`ambiguity, I disagree with Dr. Moon’s interpretation for the terms “first receiver
`
`module” and “second receiver module.”
`
`2.
`
`The ’081 Patent’s Specification Explains that “Modules”
`Are Not Necessarily Separate Physical Components
`19. Dr. Moon does not appear to provide specification support for his
`
`interpretation of “first receiver module” and “second receiver module.” EX2019,
`
`¶¶50-55. Instead of citing specific language from the specification that would
`
`support his claim interpretation, Dr. Moon relies on the claim language and the
`
`additional “output system” described in the claim. I understand that the Board,
`
`however, has already acknowledged in the Institution Decision that the
`
`specification does not support Dr. Moon’s interpretation of the claims. DI, 43. I
`
`understand that the Board explained that specification does not limit the term
`
`“module” in the way that Dr. Moon proposes. Id. Specifically, the Board relied on
`
`the following passage from the specification:
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`[I]n general the word “module,” as used herein, refers to logic
`embodied in hardware and/or firmware, and/or to a collection of
`software instructions, … The modules described herein are preferably
`implemented as software modules, but may be represented in
`hardware and/or firmware. Generally, the modules described herein
`refer to logical modules that may be combined with other modules or
`divided into sub-modules despite their physical organization or
`storage.
`
`EX1001, 6:47-7:8.1
`
`20.
`
`In analyzing this passage, the Board explained that “the specification
`
`of the ’081 Patent does not support Patent Owner’s assertion that the recited
`
`modules must necessarily be separate physical components.” DI, 43. The Board
`
`was correct in this analysis and should continue to reject the claim interpretation
`
`presented by Dr. Moon.
`
`21. As seen from the quoted passage from the specification, the term
`
`“module” refers to a combination of hardware and/or software components that
`
`may implement module logic. Specifically, the term module “refers to logic
`
`embodied in hardware and/or firmware, and/or to a collection of software
`
`instructions.” EX1001, 6:47-7:8. In this manner, the specification does not limit the
`
`term “module” to require separate and distinct devices or suggest such a
`
`1 All emphasis in this document is added, except where otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`requirement. Instead, based on this language, the ’081 patent specification
`
`contemplates using common hardware and/or software to implement two logical
`
`modules. Id., 6:47-7:8, 16:60-17:3. I understand that Dr. Moon confirmed during
`
`his deposition that implementing two modules on a device was possible. EX1015,
`
`27:4-16, 93:17-25, 95:1-18. Based on this understanding and the specification’s
`
`clear definition for the term “module,” the recitation of “module” in the claim
`
`broadly encompasses overlapping hardware and/or software that may implement a
`
`first receiver module and a second receiver module. This would be consistent with
`
`how a POSA would have interpreted the claims in light of the specification.
`
`EX1001, 6:47-7:8.
`
`22. For example, a POSA would have understood that receiving signals
`
`that have been modulated and/or encoded differently would use different receivers
`
`or receiver logic. Receiver logic and architecture is governed by the transmitter
`
`architecture. This is why most communication system standards, e.g. LTE from the
`
`3GPP standards body, specify the transmitter and not the receiver. A POSA would
`
`have understood that two transmitters that are not modulating and/or encoding
`
`information in the same manner would utilize two sets of receive logic to process
`
`the received signals. A POSA would have understood, however, that the
`
`implementation of such receivers may include common hardware and/or software.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`The software would likely implement separate processing to perform the receiving
`
`operation.
`
`23.
`
`I have worked on such receiving systems as I have previously
`
`testified.
`
`to
`is your experience with respect
`Thank you. What
`Q.
`transmission of information on subcarrier signals using methods
`known as radio broadcast data systems or RBDS, Dr. Williams?
`
`
`
`In the late eighties I worked at Motorola and we designed radio
`A.
`systems for Bosch, and that radio system included reception of radio
`data signals in Europe. Our RBDS is the U.S. version of that standard.
`
`EX2020, 14:9-19.
`
`24. The system that I have described here is an example of a device that
`
`includes multiple receivers—one for AM radio transmissions, one for FM radio
`
`transmissions, and one for RDS radio transmissions. The device included a single
`
`Digital Signal Processor (DSP) which executed software to demodulate and decode
`
`the information transmitted by the three different types of transmitters. A POSA
`
`would have understood this single device to include three receives.
`
`25. Similar to this understanding, the specification also describes a single
`
`hardware device that implements the claimed functionality corresponding to the
`
`first and second receiver modules. See EX1001, 4:50-63, 14:40-15:3, 22:45-23:35,
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`FIGs. 1B, 1C, 4A. For example, “FIG. 1B and FIG. 1C illustrate the media
`
`association system 2 transmitting the advertisement media signal 113 and the
`
`related media signal 114 to the primary and/or ancillary devices 4, 5.” Id., 14:40-
`
`46. The specification also states that “advertisement media signal 113” and
`
`“related media signal 114” may be provided to the primary and/or ancillary device
`
`using “the same means.” Id., 14:63-15:3. In both passages, the use of the term
`
`“and/or” indicates that a single device (such as primary device 4) may have the
`
`necessary modules for receiving both the advertisement media signal 113 and the
`
`related media signal 114—corresponding to the claimed second media content. The
`
`specification broadly encompasses this possibility as further depicted in Figures 1B
`
`and 1C.
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIGs. 1B-1C.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`26. Figure 4A also supports this understanding and depicts a single device
`
`(primary device 4) having modules for receiving both first media content and
`
`second media content (e.g., a related media signal 114, an advertisement signal
`
`113). EX1001, 22:45-23:35.
`
`EX1001, FIG. 4A
`
`
`
`27. The specification explains that “primary device 4 can receive a variety
`
`of inputs, comprising a first media signal 111, a related media signal 114, an
`
`advertisement signal 113, a user input, a configuration signal, and/or stored
`
`media.” EX1001, 22:48-51. The signals described in this passage correspond to
`
`audio and/or video received at the primary device 4, and correspond to the claimed
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`first and second media content. Id., 22:67-23:18; see also id., 4:50-63. As seen
`
`from this description, the specification describes and includes a single device, such
`
`as primary device 4, having the necessary modules for receiving both the first and
`
`second media content.
`
`28. Additionally, the specification also describes a single device
`
`discretely receiving a first media signal and an advertisement message. EX1001,
`
`4:50-63. That is, the specification explains that even when the media content is
`
`received separately and discretely, “the device receives both the first media signal
`
`and the advertisement message and presents them to the user.” Id. Based on this
`
`passage, the specification also describes a single devices that implements the
`
`functionality of the claimed first and second receiver modules and uses multiple
`
`receiver modules to receive both sets of media content. In this manner, the
`
`specification does not support a restrictive interpretation of the terms and does not
`
`support limiting the claims to include the additional limitations that Dr. Moon
`
`proposes.
`
`29.
`
`In addition to the specification, I also note that other claims use
`
`different claim language that would suggest that the term “module” does not
`
`include the additional limitations proposed by Dr. Moon. For example, claims 1
`
`and 12 both recite a “plurality of user devices.” EX1001, 34:21-22, 34:33-40,
`
`35:50-51, 35:61-36:12. In contrast to a “user device,” claim 9 uses the term
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`“module.” Because these claim terms are different, a POSA would have
`
`understood them to have different meanings. Therefore, a POSA would not have
`
`understood the term “modules” to require separate user devices, but rather follow
`
`the description from the specification.
`
`3.
`
`The Claimed “Output System” Does Not Limit the Claimed
`First and Second Receiver Modules
`I understand that Dr. Moon refers to claim element 9[d] to provide an
`
`30.
`
`explanation as to why the first and second receiver modules should be limited.
`
`EX2019, ¶¶52-54. Claim element 9[d] recites “an output system configured to
`
`present concurrently the first media content and the second media content on an
`
`output of the first receiver module or the second receiver module.” EX1001, 35:32-
`
`35. I note that the claim language recites an “or,” which indicates that the claim is
`
`satisfied when a single output outputs both the first media content and the second
`
`media content concurrently.
`
`31. When arguing that the first and second receiver modules must reside
`
`on two separate devices, Dr. Moon relies on this “output system.” EX2019, ¶¶52-
`
`55. Dr. Moon argues that the claim’s recitation of “an output of the first receiver
`
`module or the second receiver module” suggests that the first and second receiver
`
`modules must be separate and distinct so that they can have their own outputs. Id.
`
`This interpretation, however, adds additional limitations that are not recited in the
`
`claims and amounts to rewriting the limitation as I have indicated above. See
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`Section II.A. Under the proper interpretation of the claims, the claimed “output
`
`system” need only output the first and second media content on a single output to
`
`be satisfied. This is clear from the “or” in claim element 9[d], which indicates that
`
`outputting the first/second media content using a single device—as opposed to two
`
`separate devices—is sufficient to satisfy the claim. Thus, Dr. Moon’s interpretation
`
`of claim element 9[d] is improperly narrow and should be rejected. Without such
`
`an interpretation, the claimed “output system” does not support the limitations
`
`added with respect to the first and second receiver modules and does not indicate
`
`that the first and second receiver modules must reside in separate and distinct
`
`devices.
`
`32. To provide additional detail, the “output system” recited in claim 9[d]
`
`functions by concurrently presenting two pieces of media using an output of the
`
`first and/or second receiver module. As I previously explained, the presenting can
`
`occur on a single device or multiple devices. EX1001, 35:32-35. The claims
`
`support this reading based on the use of the “or” in claim element 9[d]. This
`
`indicates that outputting the first and second media content using a single device—
`
`as opposed to two separate devices—is sufficient to satisfy the claim. To illustrate
`
`an example, outputting audio data (“first media content”), for example via a
`
`speaker, with corresponding visual data (“second media content”), for example via
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`a display, using a single device would be sufficient to satisfy the claim. See, e.g.,
`
`EX1001, FIG. 3. The specification depicts such a scenario in Figure 3.
`
`EX1001, FIG. 3.
`
`
`
`33. As seen from Figure 3, primary device 4 is depicted receiving
`
`multiple media content and then outputting the media content concurrently via a
`
`split screen display and/or a display with a speaker. I note that the ’081
`
`specification includes a lengthy discussion of Figure 3 and the functionality that it
`
`depicts. See generally EX1001, 18:56-22:32. I have cited some relevant sections
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`below explaining that multiple outputs (e.g., audio and video) may be received and
`
`presented at a single device.
`
`When primary device 4 receives the first media signal 111 through a
`receiver 455 and/or wire data connection 470, the contents of first
`media signal 111 can be presented along with related information to
`the user on primary device 4. For example, if the first media signal
`111 comprises a radio program the primary device 4 can play the
`audio signal to the user through speaker 453.
`
`EX1001, 18:57-63.
`
`When tuned to a radio station the first transmitter 3, the display panel
`450 can show information relating to the radio program being
`played, and the information can be acquired from an associated media
`signal 112 and/or from the media association system 2.
`
`EX1001, 19:13-17.
`
`Control and/or presentation logic of the graphic and/or audio
`information presented via display panel 450, upper panel 451, lower
`panel 452, and/or speaker 453 is established and maintained[.]
`
`EX1001, 19:38-44.
`
`In FIG. 3, the upper portion of the display panel 451 can comprise
`textual information corresponding to the music being played on the
`radio, comprising the name of the artist, title of the song or media
`content, and/or time remaining in the song or media content.
`However, the display could also comprise other information
`comprising the record label or logo, the price of the album or media
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`content, related news, lyrics, radio station logo, advertiser logo or
`message, and/or sponsored information or other information that users
`may desire to see while listening to the radio station. Additionally, the
`display can comprise album art, a music video, and/or any other form
`of media (graphical, textual and/or otherwise).
`
`EX1001, 19:17-29.
`
`The lower panel 452 of the display panel in FIG. 3 displays an
`advertisement signal 113. In the illustrated embodiment, the lower
`panel 452 displays a textual advertisement signal 113. However, like
`the related media signal 114 displayed on the upper panel 451, the
`advertisement signal 113 can comprise any sort of media which can
`be provided as a static image, scrolling images, text, overlaid audio,
`interactive media, video, and/or other forms of media.
`
`EX1001, 19:45-52.
`
`Referring further to FIG. 3, in some embodiments, the related media
`signal 114 and/or the advertisement signal 113 may be provided using
`the same display means as the first media signal 111. In FIG. 3, the
`first media signal 111 may comprise audio along with video and/or
`graphical media content. In this instance the display panel 450 can be
`further subdivided, such that the primary device 4 can present each
`graphical signal (first media signal 111, advertisement signal 113,
`and/or related media signals 114) all, substantially all, or some on
`the same display panel 450.
`
`EX1001, 20:37-46.
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`34. As seen from these passages, the ’081 patent specification describes
`
`concurrently presenting first and second media content on a single device. This
`
`also satisfies the claim which simply requires concurrent presentation of both
`
`media on a single device’s output.
`
`35. Dr. Moon does not address these embodiments from the specification
`
`that describe multiple media signals being received by a single device and
`
`outputting multiple media concurrently on that single device. I understand that
`
`claims should not be interpreted to exclude embodiments in the specification.
`
`Therefore, Dr. Moon’s claim interpretation is incorrect because it excludes the
`
`embodiments described above regarding the functionality of a single user device.
`
`III. THE GROUNDS PRESENTED IN MY PREVIOUS DECLARATION
`DISCLOSE ALL OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS.
`A. Ground 1: Mackintosh
`1. Mackintosh Discloses the Claimed “Second Receiver
`Module”
`36. Dr. Moon appears to argue that Mackintosh does not disclose the
`
`claimed “second receiver module” because it is does not recite “two distinct
`
`receiver modules.” EX2019, ¶70. To present this argument, however, Dr. Moon
`
`assumes that his narrow interpretation of the claims must be correct. Id. The basis
`
`for this argument is premised on Dr. Moon’s narrow interpretation of the claim that
`
`is incorrect for the reasons I explained in Section II.B. To illustrate Dr. Moon’s
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`argument, he argues that Mackintosh’s “communications interface” located within
`
`a user terminal or computer is insufficient to disclose a second receiver module
`
`because Mackintosh only includes a “single interface that receives external data.”
`
`EX2019, ¶72. In response to these arguments, I note that (1) Dr. Moon’s
`
`interpretation of “second receiver module” recited in the claim is incorrect for the
`
`reasons that I explained in Section II.B; (2) Dr. Moon does not acknowledge that a
`
`single element in the prior art may satisfy multiple claim limitations; and (3)
`
`Mackintosh discloses the claimed “second receiver module” even under Dr.
`
`Moon’s narrow interpretation.
`
`37. As I previously explained, claim 9 does not require that the first and
`
`second receiver modules be separate and distinct. See Section II.B. Without this
`
`limitation, Mackintosh discloses the claimed “second receiver module” for the
`
`same reasons presented in the Petition and in my previous declaration. Pet., 25-32;
`
`EX1003, ¶¶75-86. As I explained in my previous declaration, Mackintosh discloses
`
`the claimed “second receiver module” and receives “supplemental materials,”
`
`which disclose the claimed “second media content.” EX1003, ¶¶75-86; EX1004,
`
`2:57-62, 3:19-26, 5:50-54, 5:59-6:2, 7:16-20, 9:7-59, 10:37-40, FIG. 5, 21:47-67,
`
`22:11-60, FIG. 10, 23:26-55, 24:55-58. For example, Mackintosh includes the
`
`following passage:
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`[T]he user may be provided with an image of an album currently
`being played, album title, artist, and track number, links