`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claim 9 Requires that the First Receiver Module and Second Receiver
`Modules Be Separate and Distinct ........................................................ 1
`Element 9[d] Require the Claimed First and Second Receiver
`Modules Each Have an Output .............................................................. 6
`
`A. Mackintosh Fails To Teach a second receiver module ......................... 9
`B. Mackintosh Fails To Teach Two Receiver Module Outputs (an output
`of the first receiver module or the second receiver module)............... 11
`Petitioner Fails to Show Mackintosh Teaches data enabling
`identification of a specific instance of the first media content ............ 12
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`A. DeWeese Fails To Teach data enabling identification of a specific
`instance of the first media content....................................................... 18
`Petitioner Fails To Show That DeWeese’s DOCSIS Modem Is a
`second receiver module configured to receive . . . the second media
`content ................................................................................................. 19
`DeWeese Fails To Teach Two Receiver Module Outputs (an output of
`the first receiver module or the second receiver module) ................... 20
`D. DeWeese Fails To Teach the second media content received discretely
`from the first media content ................................................................ 22
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`VIL. CONCLUSION W... ec ceececeeseeeeessseeeeeeneeeeeneeeeesseeeseaeeeseseeeeesseeeeseeaeeneeaaes 23
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................ 2, 6
`Playtex Prods., Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`400 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 13
`PSN Illinois, LLC v. Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc.,
`525 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 3
`ScentAir Techs., LLC v. Prolitec, Inc.,
`IPR2021-00012, Paper 22 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2022) ........................... 10, 12, 15, 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`UPDATED TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`Exhibit Description
`2001 E-mail from Court Clerk Setting CMC, Markman Hearing, and Trial
`Date in the Parallel W.D. Tex. Litigations (May 4, 2021)
`
`2002
`
`Volkswagen’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Direct the United
`States District Court for the Western District of Texas to Rule on
`Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (Jun. 4, 2021)
`2003 E-mail from W.D. Tex. Court Clerk Denying Request to Stay Pending
`Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (May 17, 2021)
`2004 Transcript of Hearing for Motion to Dismiss/Transfer for Improper
`Venue in Parallel W.D. Tex. Litigations (Jun. 23, 2021)
`
`2005
`
`Interview with Judge Albright on Patent Litigation and Seventh
`Amendment, IAM (Apr. 7, 2020)
`
`2006
`
`Joint Scheduling Order of Parallel W.D. Tex. Litigations (July 15,
`2021)
`2007 Notice of Serving Preliminary Infringement Contentions in Parallel
`W.D. Tex. Litigations (May 13, 2021)
`
`2008
`[Intentionally Left Blank]
`2009 Defendants’ Disclosure of Invalidity Contentions Cover Pleading in
`Parallel W.D. Litigations (July 8, 2021)
`2010 Transcript of hearing in ParkerVision v. Intel Corp., 6:20-cv-00108
`(W.D. Tex. September 2, 2020) (J. Albright)
`2011 Hyundai Notice of and Stipulation for Hyundai U.S. Patent No.
`8,166,081 with reference to IPR2021-01267
`
`2012
`
`[Intentionally Left Blank]
`
`2013
`
`[Intentionally Left Blank]
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`2014
`
`[Intentionally Left Blank]
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`2015 Order Resetting Markman Hearing 6:20-cv-01131 (W.D. Tex.
`September 10, 2021) (J. Albright)
`
`2016 Third Proposed Amended Joint Scheduling Order of Parallel W.D. Tex.
`Litigations (September 15, 2021)
`
`2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Volkswagen Motion to
`Dismiss (W.D. Tex. September 20, 2021) (J. Albright)
`
`2018 Declaration of Hallie Kiernan in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion for
`Admission Pro Hac Vice
`
`2019 Declaration of Dr. Todd Moon dated January 14, 2022
`
`2020 Deposition Transcript of Dr. Tim A. Williams dated January 6, 2022
`
`2021 U.S. Patent 8,875,188 B2 issued October 28, 2014
`
`2022 Deposition Transcript of Dr. Tim A. Williams dated May 18, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`StratosAudio, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) submits this Sur-Reply in response to
`
`the Reply to Patent Owner Response (Paper 31, hereafter the “Reply”) filed by
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Petitioner”). The Petition and Reply do not
`
`establish by a preponderance of evidence
`
`that any challenged claim
`
`is
`
`unpatentable.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A. Claim 9 Requires that the First Receiver Module and Second
`Receiver Modules Be Separate and Distinct
`Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s construction of first receiver module
`
`and second receiver module ignores the Board’s reasoning and the ’081 patents
`
`definition of “module.” Reply, 6-7.
`
`Patent Owner did not ignore the Board’s reasoning; Patent Owner instead
`
`showed why it was incorrect to read claim 9 to cover a single receiver module with
`
`a single output. Patent Owner Response (“POR”), Paper 27, 12-15. Specifically,
`
`Patent Owner explained that, while the specification defines “module” broadly,
`
`Claim 9 makes clear that two separate modules are required, and that one module
`
`must receive data “discretely” (i.e., separately and individually) from the other
`
`module. Also, the plain language of the claims requires each module to have its
`
`own separate “output” (an “output” of the “first receiver module” and an “output”
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`of the “second receiver module”). In other words, no matter how broadly the word
`
`“module” is read, Claim 9 expressly requires two such modules—one is not
`
`enough—and each module must have its own output. POR, 12-15. The plain
`
`language of claim 9 cannot be read any other way.
`
`Rather than attacking Patent Owner’s position directly, Petitioner makes a
`
`straw man argument. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the specification of the
`
`’081 patent supports a reading where one device can have the “necessary modules
`
`for receiving both the first and second media content.” Reply, 8-10.
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute this, but it is irrelevant because Patent Owner
`
`never argued claim 9 requires two “devices.” Patent Owner instead pointed out
`
`that the claim requires two distinct modules. POR, 12-15. One could of course
`
`create an embodiment using separate devices. In such an embodiment, each device
`
`will have a separate receiver module and a separate output. This would satisfy
`
`claim 9. Other embodiments, however, are equally possible. Conversely, a system
`
`with a single receiver module and/or a single output is not covered by claim 9.
`
`Single-output systems may allow for concurrent presentation, but they do not
`
`satisfy the other structural limitations of the system recited in Claim 9. Moreover,
`
`the law is clear that different claims may have a different scope and may be
`
`directed to different embodiments. See Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip.,
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“It is often the case that different
`
`claims are directed to and cover different disclosed embodiments. The patentee
`
`chooses the language and accordingly the scope of his claims.”); PSN Illinois, LLC
`
`v. Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc., 525 F.3d 1159, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“courts must
`
`recognize that disclosed embodiments may be within the scope of other allowed
`
`but unasserted claims”).
`
`The Figures Petitioner identifies do not suggest any different understanding.
`
`Figure 1B does not show what modules receive the media content, nor does it show
`
`any outputs. The devices are simply black boxes, so this figure is not instructive as
`
`to the proper interpretation of claim 9. Put another way, Figure 1B could be
`
`implemented in a way that embodies claim 9 (via the use of two modules with two
`
`outputs), or Figure 1B could be implemented in a way that uses only a single
`
`module with a single output.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`Figure 1C and 4A (reproduced below) are no different. Figure 1C again
`
`shows the devices as black boxes without modules or outputs. EX1001, 15:4-7.
`
`Figure 4A recites the functions the modules perform (“receive 1st Media Signal,”
`
`“Receive Related Media Signal,” etc.) but this figure too does not show the
`
`structures that perform those functions. Once again, nothing in the figures
`
`suggests interpreting claim 9 in a manner inconsistent with its plain language.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`FIG. IC
`
`Media
`Association
`System
`
`
`
`ID|Advertisement
`
`
`
`
`
`Primary Device
`Ancillary
`Device(s)
`
`
`Signal
`
`Receive
`Ist Media
`Signal
`
`Receive
`Advertisement
`
`Choose Output Media
`
`Present Output Media
`
`
`
`Receive
`Configuration
`
`Signal
`
`
`
`Send ta
`Media
`Association
`
`System
`
`Sendto
`Advertisement
`Entity
`
`Action
`
`Send to
`First
`Transmitter
`
`Send io
`Ancillery
`Device
`
`Change
`Output
`Criteria
`
`;
`
`Perform
`Device
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`In a footnote, Petitioner contends that claim differentiation supports its claim
`
`construction position. Reply, 10 n.4. Here too, Petitioner relies on a straw man
`
`argument. The phrase “plurality of user devices” in Claims 1 and 12 limit the
`
`number of devices present in the system. Claim 9 does not recite any “devices.”
`
`Claim 9 does recite two “modules,” where each module receives data “discretely”
`
`from the other, and where each module has its own output. Both claims have
`
`structural limitations—on the number of devices, modules, and/or outputs. The
`
`claims are different in scope, but the language in each must be respected.
`
`B.
`
`Element 9[d] Require the Claimed First and Second Receiver
`Modules Each Have an Output
`There can be no dispute that Claim 9 requires two outputs—an output of the
`
`first receiver module and an output of the second receiver module. Reading the
`
`claim any other way would render the use of the words “first,” “second,” and “or”
`
`meaningless. Yet that is precisely what Petitioner seeks to do. Petitioner would
`
`have the Board read the “or” in Element 9[d] as “and/or.” Reply, 11 (“the claimed
`
`‘output system,’ simply recites two pieces of media being concurrently presented
`
`by an output of the first and/or second receiver module.”) (emphasis added). But
`
`the patentee chooses the language and accordingly the scope of its claims. See
`
`Helmsderfer, 527 F.3d at 1383. Here, the patentee used the term “or” in the claim
`
`despite the use of “and/or” throughout the specification, clearly indicating an intent
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`to limit Claim 9 to a system with two separate receiver modules each having a
`
`corresponding output. The output system must choose one of these two outputs for
`
`concurrent presentation of media content. Patent Owner could have written the
`
`claim differently, requiring merely “an output.” But that is not the claim Patent
`
`Owner wrote. Its drafting choices must be respected.
`
`Petitioner misrepresents Patent Owner’s argument as requiring that the
`
`output system “present either the first media content or the second media content
`
`on a second output of the second receiver module.” Reply, 4. That is not Patent
`
`Owner’s position. The claim is clear—both pieces of media content must be sent
`
`to either the output of the first receiver module or the output of the second receiver
`
`module. In other words, both outputs must exist, and at least one must support
`
`concurrent presentation. Anything less does not satisfy claim 9 as written. POR,
`
`13-14. It is this structural limitation of system Claim 9 that Petitioner asks the
`
`Board to ignore.
`
`Petitioner concludes that Patent Owner’s position ignores embodiments in
`
`the ’081 patent that “clearly contemplate a single device receiving multiple media
`
`signals and outputting them concurrently.” Reply, 12. Again, this is a straw man
`
`argument. A single device could practice Claim 9—but only if it has two separate
`
`and distinct receiver modules with two separate outputs. No prior art teaches such
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`a configuration, as explained below. Instead, Petitioner relies on systems with a
`
`single receiver and a single output. Such systems do not render Claim 9
`
`unpatentable.
`
`Moreover, in reaching this conclusion, Petitioner relies almost exclusively
`
`on Dr. Williams’ incomplete summary of Figure 3. Reply, 11-12 (citing EX1016,
`
`¶¶ 31-35). Yet that figure if anything shows how one could create a system to
`
`practice Claim 9. Both the computer (5) and cell phone (4) have separate receiver
`
`modules and separate outputs (a screen and/or speakers). One of the two outputs
`
`(here, the phone) shows the concurrent presentation of two items of media content.
`
`This tracks the language in Claim 9. Again, other configurations may embody
`
`Claim 9, so long as they have two separate and distinct modules each with its own
`
`output. Nothing in Figure 3, however, suggests either the two distinct receiver
`
`module limitations or the two distinct output limitations can be ignored.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the Board should interpret the terms first receiver module and
`
`second receiver module to require two separate and distinct receiver modules.
`
` MACKINTOSH FAILS TO TEACH EACH ELEMENT OF CLAIM 9
`A. Mackintosh Fails To Teach a second receiver module
`Petitioner contends that Patent Owner failed to address the Board’s
`
`Institution Decision when it discussed the meaning of module and provided case
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`law on using the same disclosure in prior art for multiple claim elements. Reply,
`
`13. Yet, in its response, Patent Owner explained that the plain language of Claim 9
`
`requires two separate and distinct receiver modules, each with its own output.
`
`POR, 13-15. There is simply no reason to believe that the single receiver disclosed
`
`in Mackintosh can act as both the first receiver module and the second receiver
`
`module as claimed.
`
`Implicitly recognizing the deficiencies in its read of Mackintosh, Petitioner
`
`contends that even under Patent Owner’s interpretation of the claims, Mackintosh
`
`discloses two receiver modules. See Reply, 14-15. Specifically, Petitioner
`
`contends that Mackintosh’s “player includes ‘a received broadcast module 404’
`
`configured to receive a broadcast and a ‘get-data module 414,’ which retrieves
`
`information pertaining to supplemental materials.” Reply, 15 (citing EX1004,
`
`20:3-22). According to Petitioner, the “received broadcast module 404” and “get-
`
`data module 414” are the first and second receiver modules. Reply, 14-15. The
`
`Board should decline to consider Petitioner’s new read of Mackintosh raised for
`
`the first time in reply. See ScentAir Techs., LLC v. Prolitec, Inc., IPR2021-00012,
`
`Paper 22 at 52-53 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2022) (explaining that Petitioner’s new read
`
`brought for the first time in reply is improper).
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`Even if the Board were inclined to consider Petitioner’s new argument,
`
`however, Petitioner has not shown how the “get data module 414” and “received
`
`broadcast module 404” meet the requirements for the first and second receiver
`
`modules in Claim 9. Claim 9 does not merely require two separate receiver
`
`modules, it requires two receiver modules that receive the appropriate media
`
`content and corresponding data, and that each have an output. See supra Section
`
`II. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Williams explains what outputs would correspond
`
`with these newly argued receiver modules, and in fact Dr. Williams admits that he
`
`did not opine on what outputs correspond with the “get data module 414” and
`
`“received broadcast module 404.” See Reply, 15; EX2022, 37:3-39:21. Without
`
`an output corresponding to each receiver module, the “get data module 414” and
`
`“received broadcast module 404” cannot constitute the first and second receiver
`
`modules of Claim 9.
`
`B. Mackintosh Fails To Teach Two Receiver Module Outputs (an
`output of the first receiver module or the second receiver module)
`Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s “arguments are premised on the
`
`incorrect claim interpretation.” Reply, 15. As explained in Patent Owner’s
`
`Response, and as reiterated in Section II.B, Element 9[d] requires that both media
`
`content are presented concurrently on one of the two available outputs: an output
`
`of the first receiver module or an output of the second receiver module. See POR,
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`13-14, 31. Mackintosh’s speakers and display together constitute a single “output”
`
`under Petitioner’s arguments, so they do not meet the limitation of Element 9[d]
`
`under the proper understanding of the claim language. POR, 30-32.
`
`Petitioner next contends that even under Patent Owner’s interpretation
`
`“Mackintosh discloses a player that provides broadcast material (‘first media
`
`content’) and ‘supplemental material’ (‘second media content’) to ‘peripheral
`
`device 422.’” Reply, 17. Petitioner’s argument is improper because it was not
`
`asserted in the Petition and, thus, should not be considered by the Board. See
`
`ScentAir Techs., LLC, IPR2021-00012, Paper 22 at 52-53.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner and Dr. Williams do not explain how—even if the
`
`“peripheral device” constitutes an output of the second receiver module—it would
`
`work with the other elements of Mackintosh that Petitioner contends meet the
`
`remaining claim elements. See Reply, 17; EX1016, ¶¶45-46. Accordingly, even
`
`under Petitioner’s newly raised reading, Petitioner has not carried its burden to
`
`show that Mackintosh discloses all the limitations of Claim 9.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner Fails to Show Mackintosh Teaches data enabling
`identification of a specific instance of the first media content
`Petitioner’s reply argument as to data enabling identification of a specific
`
`instance of the first media content is premised on a misinterpretation of Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments. Petitioner contends that Patent Owner reads into the Element
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`9[a] the following underlined content: “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
`
`the broadcast by a main facility.” Reply, 4 (emphasis in original). Petitioner’s
`
`interpretation is incorrect, and it is Petitioner (not Patent Owner) that seeks to
`
`improperly modify the language of Element 9[a].
`
`It is a basic tenet of claim construction that every word in the claim must be
`
`given meaning. See Playtex Prods., Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901,
`
`909-10 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim construction was flawed in part because it read
`
`“substantially flattened” as “flat,” effectively ignoring the “substantially” qualifier
`
`in the claim). Through the discussion of data enabling identification of a specific
`
`instance of the first media content, Patent Owner seeks to explain the meaning and
`
`relevance of the word “specific” in Element 9[a]. In contrast, Petitioner seeks to
`
`read the word “specific” out of Element 9[a] entirely.
`
`Petitioner contends that if there is a single “specific instance” then there is
`
`no need to have data that can differentiate one instance from another. Reply, 17-
`
`18. That is not what the claim says. The phrase “specific instance” indicates that
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`the data enables identification of a particular occurrence of media content as
`
`opposed, to identifying just the content itself, or just the fact that an instance of
`
`media content occurred. POR, 33-35. Put another way, identifying content (e.g.,
`
`the song “Let it Be” by the Beatles) is not a specific identification. The song “Let
`
`it Be” can be found on countless Beatles albums, compilations, and re-releases. It
`
`is played on countless radio stations around the country each day. Simply saying
`
`“Let it Be” was played is not specific identification, even if it was only played
`
`once. Acknowledging this plain meaning of the words “specific” and “specific
`
`instance” does not require reading any of Petitioner’s underlined text into the claim
`
`or “analyzing” multiple instances of the media content.
`
`Petitioner next
`
`incorrectly asserts
`
`that Patent Owner “overlooked”
`
`Mackintosh’s disclosure that each song on a radio station “comprises a distinct
`
`segment” and that a “cut code corresponding to and uniquely identifying a
`
`segment from the standpoint of the radio station is transmitted.” Reply, 18
`
`(emphasis omitted). Patent Owner’s expert opined on this passage and explained
`
`that despite this passage, Mackintosh still does not disclose data enabling
`
`identification of a specific instance of the first media content because a cut code is
`
`incapable of performing this function. POR, 34-35 (citing EX2019, ¶85).
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`Moreover, Petitioner’s expert confirmed that Mackintosh’s cut codes alone
`
`are insufficient to distinguish between different occurrences of the same song and
`
`that additional contextual information would be required. POR, 35 (citing
`
`EX2020, 88:7-19, 90:11-91:3). That Petitioner now presents new evidence
`
`contrary to its expert’s prior concessions in his deposition does not negate those
`
`concessions. Specifically, Petitioner seeks to rely through its expert on newly
`
`asserted evidence as to the meaning of “cut code.” Reply, 19 (citing EX1016,
`
`¶¶50-51). In any event, the descriptions of “cut code” in new Exhibits 1018 and
`
`1019 are nearly identical to those in Mackintosh and provide no additional insight
`
`into the meaning of Mackintosh’s “cut codes” from the perspective of a POSITA.
`
`Compare EX1004, 21:18-25 with EX1018, 22:5-15 & EX1019, ¶57. As to Exhibit
`
`1017 (Noreen), nowhere in this new exhibit do the words “cut code” appear and,
`
`thus, Noreen cannot shed light on the meaning of “cut code” as Dr. Williams
`
`contends. See EX1016, ¶ 51. Instead, Dr. William’s looks to the term “unique
`
`identifier” in Noreen and essentially asks the Board to find it was obvious to a
`
`POSITA that Mackintosh’s “cut code” would be akin to Noreen’s “unique
`
`identifier.” Id. This reliance on Noreen is an improper new obvious combination
`
`that should not be considered. See ScentAir Techs., LLC, IPR2021-00012, Paper
`
`22 at 52-53. However, even if the Board were to consider Petitioner’s newly
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`asserted combination of Mackintosh and Noreen’s “unique identifier,” Petitioner
`
`makes no attempt to meet the requirements of an obviousness challenge, including
`
`demonstrating a motivation to combine the two references and that a POSITA
`
`would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
`
` MACKINTOSH FAILS TO TEACH CLAIM 10
`In its Reply, Petitioner asserts that the passages Patent Owner relies on from
`
`the ’081 patent “underscore[] why Mackintosh discloses claim 10.” Reply, 20.
`
`Petitioner points to one of the passages Patent Owner cited and claims that in that
`
`passage “limiting criterion is satisfied by a user input that chooses media to
`
`output.” Id. (citing POR, 36 (citing EX1001, 22:65-67)). Petitioner then contends
`
`that one such “user input” could be changing the channel. Id. However, Petitioner
`
`fails to address the remainder of that passage, which explains:
`
`The interactive television system can also receive a configuration
`
`signal from the media association system 2 with criteria stating
`
`what a user may and may not watch. The interactive television
`
`system could then, upon user input for selecting a channel, either
`
`display the video signal on that channel from the first transmitter,
`
`or instead an advertisement media signal 113 from the media
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`association system 2 if the user is not permitted to view that
`
`channel.”
`
`EX1001, 23:7-14 (emphasis added). This passage explains that the “criteria” and
`
`the “user input” are separate. Namely, the “criterion” indicates what a user may or
`
`may not watch and the “user input for selecting a channel” merely brings about a
`
`decision point: is the “criterion” met? Claim 9 requires a criterion, specifically, on
`
`that limits the output of the first and second media content. It does not require
`
`“user input.”
`
`Petitioner then raises for the first time the existence of Mackintosh’s “virtual
`
`buttons or selectors like ‘a volume control 312’ and a ‘mute button.’” Reply, 21.
`
`As an initial matter, Petitioner’s new read is improper. See ScentAir Techs., LLC,
`
`IPR2021-00012, Paper 22 at 52-53 (explaining that petitioner’s new read brought
`
`for the first time in reply is improper). Even if the Board were to consider
`
`Petitioner’s new read on Mackintosh, however, Petitioner does not explain how the
`
`“volume control 312” and “mute button” limit the output of both the alleged first
`
`media content (Mackintosh’s audio broadcast) and the alleged second media
`
`content (Mackintosh’s supplemental materials) based on a single criterion. See
`
`EX2019, ¶¶ 89-90; EX1015, 138:23-139:15. Therefore, Petitioner has not carried
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`its burden to show that “a volume control 312” and a “mute button” meet the
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`limitation of Claim 10.
`
` DEWEESE FAILS TO TEACH EACH ELEMENT OF CLAIM 9
`A. DeWeese Fails To Teach data enabling identification of a specific
`instance of the first media content
`In reply, Petitioner contends that Patent Owner “inserts a requirement that
`
`the claim ‘data’ must be ‘dynamically determined at the time of broadcast.’”
`
`Reply, 21. However, contrary to Petitioner’s argument, Patent Owner does not
`
`contend that the word dynamically should be read into the claims. Instead, Patent
`
`Owner’s point is based on the plain language of the claim: the data enabling
`
`identification of a specific instance of a first media content, must enable
`
`identification of the first media content transmitted to and received by the first
`
`receiver module. POR, 38-39. The way in which the ’081 patent ensures the data
`
`enables identification of the first media content is through determining the data
`
`using the “broadcast scanning system 160” at the time of broadcast. POR, 38-39.
`
`In contrast, the program guide in DeWeese is merely a schedule of what could
`
`occur on a broadcast, i.e., “static information such as TV listings, program times,
`
`channels, and titles generated beforehand at the main facility.” POR, 39.
`
`Petitioner tries to make up for this deficiency in DeWeese by contending
`
`that “DeWeese’s program guide must be regularly updated to reflect updated
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`‘television program listings’ and ‘program times.’” Reply, 23. Yet nowhere in
`
`DeWeese does the word “update” appear, nor does Petitioner point to anything in
`
`DeWeese that shows this program guide “must be regularly updated.” Petitioner
`
`and Dr. Williams cite to a single paragraph in DeWeese that merely describes the
`
`program guide as including television listings data, but that does not show that
`
`those television listings are updated. Reply, 23 (citing EX1005, ¶53).
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Fails To Show That DeWeese’s DOCSIS Modem Is a
`second receiver module configured to receive . . . the second
`media content
`Petitioner’s arguments as to DeWeese’s alleged second receiver module
`
`merely reiterate its arguments from the Petition and fail to overcome the
`
`deficiencies Patent Owner noted in its response. For the reasons provided in Patent
`
`Owner’s response, Patent Owner maintains that DeWeese fails to disclose a second
`
`receiver module configured to receive . . . the second media content. POR, 39-41.
`
`Petitioner does not seem to contest that DeWeese’s communication path 24
`
`(not the DOCSIS modem) performs the functions of both the second receiver
`
`module and the first receiver module. See Reply, 24 (“PO additionally argues that
`
`DeWeese’s communication path 24 corresponds to the first receiver module and
`
`not the second receiver module.”). As explained above, the correct interpretation
`
`of Claim 9 requires two separate and distinct receiver modules each with its own
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`output. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the same portion of DeWeese
`
`can act as both the first receiver module and the second receiver module. Any
`
`contrary finding ignores the claim language.
`
`Petitioner attempts to circumvent the plain language of the claim by alleging
`
`that “DeWeese’s DOCSIS modem operates separately from, and evokes different
`
`components than the other portions of set top box 26.” Reply 24-25. Yet that is
`
`not the only limitation of Claim 9; each receiver module must also have its own
`
`“output.” As provided in the Patent Owner Response, DeWeese does not disclose
`
`an “output” associated with the DOCSIS modem. POR, 41-43.
`
`C. DeWeese Fails To Teach Two Receiver Module Outputs (an
`output of the first receiver module or the second receiver module)
`Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s arguments as to the “outputs” in
`
`DeWeese is premised on an incorrect interpretation of Claim 9.1 However, for the
`
`
`1 Petitioner’s use of imprecise language further complicates the task of claim
`
`interpretation. Petitioner argues that “the claims are satisfied when a single system
`
`includes a first and second receiver module and outputs the first and second media
`
`content concurrently.” Reply, 25 (emphasis added). It is unclear whether
`
`Petitioner is referring to the system as a whole, i.e., the system contemplated by
`
`Claim 9, or whether Petitioner is referring to the output system explicitly described
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`reasons provided in Section II.B, Claim 9 as properly interpreted requires two
`
`outputs with at least one output capable of presenting both the first and second
`
`media content concurrently.
`
` As described in Patent Owner’s Response,
`
`DeWeese’s television display screen 200 is only a single output. POR, 42. While
`
`display screen 200 may be capable of presenting both media content concurrently,
`
`Petitioner cannot point to and DeWeese does not disclose, a second “output.” Id.
`
`Accordingly, DeWeese does not disclose the structural requirements of Element
`
`9[d]: an output of the first receiver module or the second receiver module. See
`
`POR, 41-43.
`
`
`
`
`
`in Element 9[d]. If the former, Petitioner has over simplified Claim 9. If the latter,
`
`it is correct that the output system can be a single system, but that does not negate
`
`the fact that the output system must include the capability to present media content
`
`concurrently on either an output of the first receiver module o
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
