PATENT OWNER’S PRESENTATION
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. ET AL.
`V.
`STRATOSAUDIO, INC.
`IPR2021-00721
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`JULY 22, 2022
`
`1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2023
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00721
`Page 1 of 57
`
`
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. ET AL.
`V.
`STRATOSAUDIO, INC.
`IPR2021-00721
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`JULY 22, 2022
`
`1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2023
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00721
`Page 1 of 57
`
`
`
`Insufficient Evidence as to Obviousness
`
`Mackintosh (Ground 2)
`
`IPR2021-00721, Paper 16 (Institution Decision), at 47-8.
`
`2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 2 of 57
`
`
`
`Insufficient Evidence as to Obviousness
`
`DeWeese (Ground 4)
`
`IPR2021-00721, Paper 16 (Institution Decision), at 50.
`
`3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 3 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Remaining Grounds
`
`Ground
`1
`
`3
`
`Prior Art
`U.S. Pat. No.
`6,349,329
`(“Mackintosh”)
`U.S. Pat. App.
`2005/0262542
`(“DeWeese”)
`
`Basis
`Anticipation only
`
`Claims
`9-11, 23
`
`Anticipation only
`
`9-11, 23
`
`Paper 1 (Petition), at 15-52, 53-81.
`
`Disputes:
`• Claim Construction
`• First/Second Receiver Module
`• Output of the first receiver module or the second
`receiver module
`• Data enabling identification of a specific instance
`• Claim 10
`
`4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 4 of 57
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721, Paper 27 (Patent Owner’s Response (“POR”)) at 12-16; Paper 36 (Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply (“Sur-Reply”)) at 1-9.
`
`5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 5 of 57
`
`
`
`’081 Patent, Claim 9
`
`EX1001 (’081 Patent) at 35:22-41 (annotations added).
`
`6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 6 of 57
`
`
`
`StratosAudio’s Contention
`
`Paper 27 (POR), at 13 (annotations added).
`
`7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 7 of 57
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 8 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s expert does not dispute that claim 9 requires
`two separate receiver modules.
`
`See Paper 27 (POR) at 26
`(citing EX2020 (Williams Deposition Tr.), 24:4-12)
`(annotations added).
`
`See Paper 27 (POR) at 26
`(citing EX2020 (Williams Deposition Tr.), 25:5-14
`(annotations added);
`see also 112:24-113:4; 111:19-112:2
`
`9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 9 of 57
`
`
`
`’081 Patent, Claim 9
`
`EX1001 at 35:22-41 (annotations added).
`
`10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 10 of 57
`
`
`
`“In one embodiment, the first media signal and the second
`media signal are separate and discrete.”
`
`• Claim 9 is directed to the “separate and
`discrete” embodiments
`• Patent contrasts this with embodiments
`where the two signals are sent in the
`“same transmission”
`
`EX1001 at 4:64-5:3 (annotations added); Paper 27 (POR) at 7-8; Paper 36 (Sur-reply) at 1.
`
`11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 11 of 57
`
`
`
`Primary & Ancillary Devices Have Separate Outputs
`
`EX1001 at cl. 9, 35:32-35 (annotations added); Paper 27 (POR) at 10-11.
`
`EX1001 at 14:5-13 (annotations added); Paper 27 (POR) at 10.
`
`EX1001 at FIG. 3; Paper 1 (Petition) at 6.
`
`EX1001 at 14:27-31 (annotations added); Paper 27 (POR) at 10.
`
`12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 12 of 57
`
`
`
`’081 Patent: Primary & Ancillary Devices
`
`EX 1001 at 10:63-11:1 (annotations added);
`Paper 27 (POR) at 7.
`
`EX 1001 at 15:4-7; Paper 36 (Sur-Reply) at 4.
`
`EX 1001 at FIG. 1C; Paper 36 (Sur-Reply) at 4-5.
`
`Paper 27 (POR) at 14; Paper 31 (Petitioner’s Reply (“Reply”)) at 8; Paper 36 (Sur-Reply) at 5.
`
`13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 13 of 57
`
`
`
`Primary & Ancillary Devices are Separate & Discrete
`
`Paper 27 (POR) at 13-14 (EX2019, ¶ 53); see also Paper 27 (POR) at 11 (citing EX1001 at 15:43-47) (annotations added).
`
`Paper 27 (POR) at 13-14 (EX2019, ¶ 53); see also Paper 27 (POR) at 11 (citing EX1001 at 21:32-36).
`
`Paper 27 (POR) at 13-14 (EX2019, ¶ 53); see also Paper 27 (POR) at 11 (citing EX1001 at 25:26-29).
`
`14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 14 of 57
`
`
`
`Example of Multiple Modules (Mackintosh)
`
`Paper 31 (Reply) at 15 (citing EX1004 at FIG. 8) (annotations added).
`
`15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 15 of 57
`
`
`
`Example of Single Module (Mackintosh)
`
`EX1004 at FIG. 13; see also Paper 27 (POR) at 28 (annotation added).
`
`16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 16 of 57
`
`
`
`Example of Single Module (DeWeese)
`
`EX1005 at ¶ [0059] (annotations added); see also Paper 27 (POR) at
`40.
`
`17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 17 of 57
`
`
`
`The Patent’s Definition of “Module” is Consistent
`with Patent Owner’s Construction.
`
`Paper 16 (Institution Decision) at 43-44 (citing EX1001 at 6:47-7:8) (emphasis in original).
`
`18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 18 of 57
`
`
`
`Mackintosh Does Not Have
`Two Receiver Modules
`
`Paper 27 (POR) at 25-29; Paper 36 (Sur-reply) at 9-11.
`
`19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 19 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner maps the first receiver module and second
`receiver module to the same component in Mackintosh.
`
`Paper 27 (POR) at 27.
`
`EX2020 (Williams Deposition Tr.), 160:2-8 (annotations added); Paper 27 (POR) at 27.
`
`EX2020 (Williams Deposition Tr.), 160:25-161:8 (annotations added); Paper 27 (POR) at 27.
`
`20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 20 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner maps the first receiver module and second
`receiver module to the same component in Mackintosh.
`
`Paper 27 (POR) at 27.
`
`EX1003, ¶ 74 (annotations added); Paper 1 (Petition) at 24.
`
`EX1003, ¶ 86 (annotations added); Paper 1 (Petition) at 32.
`
`21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 21 of 57
`
`
`
`Mackintosh: Single Receiver Module
`
`Paper 27 (POR) at 28.
`
`EX1004 FIG. 13 (annotations added); see also Paper 27 (POR) at 28.
`
`22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 22 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner maps the first receiver module and second
`receiver module to the same component in Mackintosh.
`
`Paper 27 (POR) at 27.
`
`When “computer” is the “user terminal 212”:
`
`EX1004 at 5:28-34 (annotations added); see also Paper 27 (POR) at 27.
`
`When “computer” is the “computer system 702”:
`
`EX1004 at 24:55-58 (annotations added); see also Paper 27 (POR) at 27.
`
`EX1004 at FIG. 13 (annotation added); see
`also Paper 27 (POR) at 28.
`
`*Petitioner uses “computer” to refer to the “user terminal 212” and “computer system 702.” Paper 1 (Petition) at 19 n.12.
`
`23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 23 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s alternative theory
`points to multiple modules, but…
`
`Paper 36 (Sur-Reply) at 12.
`
`Paper 31 (Reply) at 15 (citing EX 1004, FIG. 8 (annotations added)).
`
`24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 24 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s new theory does not
`address all the claim elements.
`
`Paper 36 (Sur-reply) at 10-11
`
`• Petitioner’s expert admits he did not
`consider what “output system”
`corresponds to the receiver modules
`identified for the first time in Petitioner’s
`Reply
`
`EX2022 (Williams Sec. Deposition Tr.), 37:3-8, 39:15-21
`(annotations added); Paper 26 (Sur-Reply) at 11;
`see also Paper 31 (Reply) 14-15, EX1016, ¶¶ 40-41.
`
`EX1005 at FIG. 8 (annotations added);
`see also Paper 31 (Reply) at 14-15, EX1016, ¶¶ 40-41.
`
`25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 25 of 57
`
`
`
`Mackintosh Does Not Have
`Two Outputs
`
`Paper 27 (POR) at 30-33; Paper 36 (Sur-reply) at 11-12.
`
`PET
`
`26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 26 of 57
`
`
`
`’081 Patent, Claim 9
`
`EX1001 at 35:22-41.
`
`27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 27 of 57
`
`
`
`“Present Concurrently”
`
`Paper 36 (Sur-Reply) at 8.
`
`EX1001 at cl. 9, 35:32-35.
`
`First Media
`Content
`Second Media
`Content
`
`Output
`
`First Receiver
`
`Second
`Receiver
`
`EX1001 at FIG. 3 (annotations added); Paper 1 (Petition) at 6.
`
`28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 28 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Theory
`
`Paper 1 (Petition) at 37 (annotations added).
`
`29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 29 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Theory
`
`Paper 1 (Petition) at 37 (annotations added).
`
`First Media Content
`
`Second Media Content
`
`EX 1004 at FIG. 12; Paper 1 (Petition) at 37.
`
`30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 30 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Theory
`
`EX1001 at cl. 9, 35:32-35.
`
`First Media Content
`
`Second Media Content
`
`OUTPUT OF THE ??
`RECEIVER MODULE
`
`EX 1004 at FIG. 12; Paper 1 (Petition) at 37.
`
`31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 31 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner has at most identified a
`single “output” in Mackintosh.
`
`EX2019, ¶ 79 (annotations added); see also Paper 27 (POR) at 30-32, Paper 36 (Sur-reply) at 11-12.
`
`32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 32 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response: Construe claim as “and/or” instead of “or.”
`
`Paper 31 (Reply) at 11.
`
`EX2020 (Williams Deposition Tr.), 114:6-15, 54:10-15 (annotations added); see also Paper 27 (POR) at 31; EX1016, ¶ 32.
`
`33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 33 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response: Construe claim as “and/or” instead of “or.”
`
`Petitioner’s Construction:
`
`Paper 31 (Reply) at 11.
`
`An output system configured to present concurrently the first media
`content and the second media content on an output of the first
`receiver module and/or the second receiver module
`
`First Media Content
`First Receiver’s Output
`
`Second Media Content
`Second Receiver’s Output
`
`OUTPUT OF THE FIRST
`AND SECOND RECEIVER MODULES
`Paper 31 (Reply) at 16.
`
`EX 1004 at FIG. 12, Paper 1 (Petition) at 37.
`
`34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 34 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response: Construe claim as “and/or” instead of “or.”
`
`Petitioner’s Construction:
`
`An output system configured to present concurrently the first media
`content and the second media content on an output of the first
`receiver module and/or the second receiver module
`
`Paper 31 (Reply) at 11.
`
`EX1001 at FIG. 3; Paper 1 (Petition) at 6.
`
`35
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 35 of 57
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Chose Not to Use “And/Or” in Claim 9
`
`Paper 27 (POR) at 10-11.
`
`Specification:
`
`EX1001 at 14:5-13 (annotation added);
`Paper 27 (POR) at 10.
`
`Claim 9:
`
`EX1001 at 14:27-31 (annotation added);
`Paper 1 (Petition) at 10.
`
`EX1001 at cl. 9, 35:32-35 (annotation added).
`
`36
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 36 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s arguments in reply are premised on a faulty
`understanding of Patent Owner’s arguments.
`
`Petitioner’s Misunderstanding
`
`Paper 31 (Reply) at 4.
`
`Patent Owner’s Actual Argument
`
`Paper 36 (Sur-Reply) at 11.
`
`37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 37 of 57
`
`
`
`Mackintosh Does Not Have Data Enabling
`Identification of a Specific Instance
`
`Paper 27 (POR) at 33-35; Paper 36 (Sur-reply) at 12-16.
`
`PET
`
`38
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 38 of 57
`
`
`
`“Cut Codes” Are Not Sufficient to
`Identify a Specific Instance.
`
`Paper 27 (POR) at 35.
`
`EX2020 (Williams Deposition Tr.), 90:11-91:3
`(annotation added); Paper 27 (POR) at 35.
`
`See also EX2020 (Williams Deposition Tr.) 91:4-8.
`
`EX2020 (Williams Deposition Tr.), 67:2-7.
`
`…
`
`39
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 39 of 57
`
`
`
`“Unique Identification for Each Program Segment”
`
`EX 1016 at ¶ 51 (annotations added).
`
`40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 40 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s arguments in reply are premised on a faulty
`understanding of Patent Owner’s arguments.
`
`Petitioner’s Misunderstanding
`
`Paper 31 (Reply) at 4.
`Patent Owner’s Actual Argument
`
`Paper 36 (Sur-Reply) at 13-14.
`
`41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 41 of 57
`
`
`
`DeWeese Does Not Have
`Two Receiver Modules
`
`Paper 27 (POR) at 39-41; Paper 36 (Sur-reply) at 19-20.
`
`42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 42 of 57
`
`
`
`DeWeese: Petitioner’s “Media Content”
`
`Paper 1 (Petition) at 58.
`
`Paper (Petition) at 65.
`
`43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 43 of 57
`
`
`
`DeWeese’s DOCSIS Modem
`
`Paper 1 (Petition) at 64.
`
`44
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 44 of 57
`
`
`
`DeWeese’s DOCSIS Modem
`
`EX 1005, ¶¶ 14, 55, 59 (annotations added); see also Paper 27 (POR) at 40-41.
`
`45
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 45 of 57
`
`
`
`DeWeese’s DOCSIS Modem
`
`EX2020 (Williams Deposition Tr.), 103:12-19
`(annotations added); see also Paper 27 (POR) at 40.
`
`EX2020 (Williams Deposition Tr.), 105:4-25
`(annotations added); see also Paper 27 (POR) at 40.
`
`46
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 46 of 57
`
`
`
`DeWeese’s DOCSIS Modem
`
`Paper 1 (Petition) at 65.
`
`47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 47 of 57
`
`
`
`DeWeese’s DOCSIS Modem
`
`EX2019, ¶ 116; Paper 27 (POR) at 45-46.
`
`48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 48 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Argument
`
`Paper 31 (Reply) at 24-25 (citing EX1016 (Williams Reply Declaration), ¶ 68) (annotations added).
`
`Also Williams Decl.
`
`EX1003 (Williams Decl.), ¶ 68 (annotations added).
`
`49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 49 of 57
`
`
`
`DeWeese’s DOCSIS Modem
`
`EX1005, ¶ 59; see also Paper 27 (POR) at 40.
`
`50
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 50 of 57
`
`
`
`DeWeese Does Not Have
`Two Outputs
`
`Paper 27 (POR) at 41-43; Paper 36 (Sur-reply) at 20-21.
`
`PET
`
`51
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 51 of 57
`
`
`
`’081 Patent, Claim 9
`
`EX1001 at 35:22-41 (annotations added).
`
`52
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 52 of 57
`
`
`
`Present Concurrently
`
`Paper 36 (Sur-Reply) at 8.
`
`EX1001 at cl. 9, 35:22-41.
`
`First Media
`Content
`Second Media
`Content
`
`Output
`
`First Receiver
`
`Second
`Receiver
`
`EX1001 at FIG. 3 (annotations added); Paper 1 (Petition) at 6.
`
`53
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 53 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Theory
`
`Paper 1 (Petition) at 68 (citing EX1003, ¶ 139).
`
`54
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 54 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Theory
`
`EX1001 at cl. 9, 35:22-41.
`
`First Media Content
`
`Second Media
`Content
`
`55
`
`OUTPUT OF THE ?? RECEIVER
`MODULE
`
`Paper 1 (Petition) at 67 (citing EX1005 at FIG. 9 (annotations added)).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 55 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner has at most identified
`a single “output” in DeWeese.
`
`EX2019, ¶ 107; see also Paper 27 (POR) at 42-43; Paper 36 (Sur-reply) at 21.
`
`56
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 56 of 57
`
`
`
`Petitioner Construes claim as “and/or” instead of “or.”
`
`Paper 31 (Reply) at 11 (annotations added).
`
`EX2020 (Williams Deposition Tr.), 114:6-15, 54:10-15 (annotations added); see also POR at 31; EX 1016, ¶ 32.
`
`57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 57 of 57
`
`
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
