PRACTICE GROUP
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`IPR2021-00852
`U.S. Patent 6,877,038
`
`Raghav Bajaj
`
`August 10, 2022
`
`Exhibit 1029
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`IPR2021-00852
`U.S. Patent 6,877,038
`
`Raghav Bajaj
`
`August 10, 2022
`
`Exhibit 1029
`
`
`
`Summary
`
` Challenged Claims 1-5 are unpatentable
` Ravi in view of Goetz (Ground 1) teaches the sole contested limitation
`[1.2.4]: making a retransmission decision, based on … bit rates of
`previously received data packets
` Zhu (Ground 3) also teaches the sole contested limitation
` Patent Owner’s narrowing arguments should be rejected.
` Patent Owner’s expert testimony cannot be considered.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Overview – ’038 Patent
`
`’038 Patent (EX1001), 3:24-31, 4:12-20, Fig. 4; Petition (Paper 1), p. 6.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`3
`
`
`
`Overview – ’038 Patent
`
`’038 Patent (EX1001), Abstract, Fig. 8; Petition (Paper 1), p. 6.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`4
`
`
`
`Overview – ’038 Patent
`
`’038 Patent (EX1001), 7:53-8:1; Petition (Paper 1), p. 7.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`5
`
`
`
`Overview – Challenged Claim 1
`
`’038 Patent (EX1001), claim 1; Petition (Paper 1), pp. 6-7.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`6
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`Petition (Paper 1), pp. 4-5; Institution Decision (Paper 9), p. 5.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`7
`
`
`
`Claim 1 – ’038 Patent
`1. A method for receiving data packets from a transmitter, said method
`comprising:
`deciding that a data packet is missing;
`making a retransmission decision, based on channel conditions,
`importance of the missing data packet and bit rates of previously received
`data packets, as to whether a retransmission request for the missing data
`packet is to be sent;
`sending the retransmission request
`retransmission decision is affirmative; and
`receiving a packet retransmitted by the transmitter in response to the
`retransmission request.
`
`to the transmitter
`
`if
`
`the
`
`’038 Patent (EX1001), claim 1; Petition (Paper 1), pp. 6-7.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`8
`
`
`
`Ravi
`
`Ravi (EX1005), Abstract, 11:42-45, Fig. 12.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`9
`
`
`
`Goetz
`
`Goetz (EX1006), 12:53-55, 13:56-58, 14:4-10, Fig. 13.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`10
`
`
`
`Ravi Teaches Limitation [1.2.4]
`
`Ravi (EX1005), 11:42-45, 11:53-60, Fig. 12; Petition (Paper 1), pp. 19-23; Reply (Paper 15), pp. 4-13.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`11
`
`
`
`Ravi Teaches Limitation [1.2.4]
`
`Ravi (EX1005), 11:61-12:4, Fig. 12; Petition (Paper 1), pp. 19-23; Reply (Paper 15), pp. 4-13.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`12
`
`
`
`Ravi Teaches Limitation [1.2.4]
`
`Dr. Houh: “Ravi’s retransmission decision is based on an estimate of how long
`it will take to receive the missing data packet, which a POSITA would have
`understood as based on the speed at which that content will be received
`over the network after examining the speed at which previous content was
`received (i.e., the receiver estimates how long a future packet will take to
`receive with knowledge of how long it took to receive previous packets).”
`
`Microsoft Comp. Dictionary (EX1017); Houh (EX1003), ¶¶ 82-85 (citing, e.g., Ravi (EX1005), 11:53-60).
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`13
`
`
`
`Ravi Teaches Limitation [1.2.4]
`
`Dr. Houh: “This elapsed time is based on
`the times of transmission and receipt of
`data for a given segment or packet, and
`because the calculation is based on
`delay in the network, this background
`knowledge
`supports
`that
`Ravi’s
`Round_Trip_Time calculation considers
`the bit rates of previously received data
`packets, because the round trip time
`calculation depends, at least in part, on
`this delay information.”
`
`Comer (EX1018), p. 226; Houh (EX1003), ¶¶ 82-85 (citing, e.g., Ravi (EX1005), 11:53-60).
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`14
`
`
`
`Ravi Teaches Limitation [1.2.4]
`
`“Slower bit rates lead to longer round trip times;
`
`faster bit rates lead to shorter round trip times.”
`
`1.02s
`
`Round Trip Time
`
`.02s = 1 Kb / 50 Kbps
`
`Transmission Time for
`Retransmission Request
`
`1.00s = 50 Kb / 50 Kbps
`
`Reception Time for
`Retransmitted Packet
`
`.51s
`
`Round Trip Time
`
`.01s = 1 Kb / 100 Kbps
`
`Transmission Time for
`Retransmission Request
`
`0.50s = 50 Kb / 100 Kbps
`
`Reception Time for
`Retransmitted Packet
`
`50 Kbps
`
`100 Kbps
`
`Institution Decision (Paper 9), p. 17 (citing Houh (EX1003), ¶¶ 82-85); Reply (Paper 15), pp. 7-9 (citing Houh Supp. (EX1022), ¶¶ 32-40).
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`15
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments are Wrong
`Patent Owner’s argument:
`• Ravi appears to describe ‘sampling’ round trip times, rather than
`‘computing’ them.
`
`Patent Owner Response (Paper 12), p. 11.
`
`Why Patent Owner is wrong:
`
`sampling, n.: 1. the act or process of selecting a sample for
`testing, analyzing, etc. 2. the sample so selected.
`EX1025, p. 4.
`
`Ravi (EX1005), 11:53-60.
`
`Reply (Paper 15), pp. 11-12.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`16
`
`
`
`be
`
`used
`
`instead
`
`of
`
`calculating
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments are Wrong
`Patent Owner’s argument:
`• A look-up
`table
`could
`Round_Trip_Time
`Why Patent Owner is wrong:
`
`Patent Owner Response (Paper 12), p. 15.
`
`Ravi (EX1005), 11:53-60.
`
`Dr. Houh: “[N]othing in Ravi suggests that such a
`look-up table exists, or would be used.
`Additionally,
`a
`POSITA would
`not
`have
`understood that such a theorized look-up table
`would include the sizes of previously received
`data packets…[E]ven if such a lookup table were
`used, it would not change that these estimated
`retransmission times of 10 ms, 15 ms, and 17 ms
`would be based on the bit rates of previously
`received packets given the knowledge of a
`POSITA.”
`Reply (Paper 15), pp. 10-11.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`
`
`be
`
`used
`
`instead
`
`of
`
`calculating
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments are Wrong
`Patent Owner’s argument:
`• A look-up
`table
`could
`Round_Trip_Time
`Why Patent Owner is wrong:
`
`Patent Owner Response (Paper 12), p. 15.
`
`Dr. Houh: “[N]othing in Ravi suggests that such a
`look-up table exists, or would be used.
`Additionally,
`a
`POSITA would
`not
`have
`understood that such a theorized look-up table
`would include the sizes of previously received
`data packets…[E]ven if such a lookup table were
`used, it would not change that these estimated
`retransmission times of 10 ms, 15 ms, and 17 ms
`would be based on the bit rates of previously
`received packets given the knowledge of a
`POSITA.”
`Reply (Paper 15), pp. 10-11.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`Ravi (EX1005), 8:50-62.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments are Wrong
`Patent Owner’s argument:
`• Ravi is concerned with the time it will take to receive the missing data
`packet, not the speed.
`
`Patent Owner Response (Paper 12), p. 12.
`
`Why Patent Owner is wrong:
`• As Patent Owner admits, speed and time are related mathematically.
`
`Reply (Paper 15), pp. 6-7.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`19
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Implicit Construction is Wrong
`“[T]he retransmission decision is made based on these bit rates, not on
`some other criteria that might be computed using bit rates.”
`This narrowing attempt is wrong and inconsistent with the specification.
`
`Patent Owner Response (Paper 12), p. 13; Reply (Paper 15), pp. 1-4; ’038 Patent (EX1001), 7:19-48, Fig. 8.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`20
`
`
`
`Claim 1 – ’038 Patent
`1. A method for receiving data packets from a transmitter, said method
`comprising:
`deciding that a data packet is missing;
`making a retransmission decision, based on channel conditions,
`importance of the missing data packet and bit rates of previously received
`data packets, as to whether a retransmission request for the missing data
`packet is to be sent;
`sending the retransmission request
`retransmission decision is affirmative; and
`receiving a packet retransmitted by the transmitter in response to the
`retransmission request.
`
`to the transmitter
`
`if
`
`the
`
`’038 Patent (EX1001), claim 1; Petition (Paper 1), pp. 6-7.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`21
`
`
`
`Ravi Teaches Limitation [1.2.4]
`
`Petition (Paper 1), pp. 23-24; Houh (EX1003), ¶¶ 89-92; Reply (Paper 15), pp. 13-16; Houh Supp. (EX1022), ¶ 51; Ravi (EX1005), 12:23-35.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`22
`
`
`
`Ravi Teaches Limitation [1.2.4]
`
`Dr. Houh: “If the client is receiving a stream at 18 kbps (i.e., the bit rates of previously received data
`packets is 18 kilobits per second), but the base stream is 14 kbps, the client will give a higher priority to
`retransmission of the 14 kbps base stream (i.e., the client will make a retransmission decision to
`request retransmission of this stream), while the 18 kbps stream is given lower priority. Thus, the bit
`rates of the previously received data packets are considered in whether to request retransmission of
`that 18 kbps stream which included the previously received data packets, or whether to request
`retransmission of the base 14 kbps stream.”
`
`Petition (Paper 1), pp. 23-24; Houh (EX1003), ¶¶ 89-92; Reply (Paper 15), pp. 13-16; Houh Supp. (EX1022), ¶ 51; Ravi (EX1005), 6:40-47.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`23
`
`
`
`Claim 1 – ’038 Patent
`1. A method for receiving data packets from a transmitter, said method
`comprising:
`deciding that a data packet is missing;
`making a retransmission decision, based on channel conditions,
`importance of the missing data packet and bit rates of previously received
`data packets, as to whether a retransmission request for the missing data
`packet is to be sent;
`sending the retransmission request
`retransmission decision is affirmative; and
`receiving a packet retransmitted by the transmitter in response to the
`retransmission request.
`
`to the transmitter
`
`if
`
`the
`
`’038 Patent (EX1001), claim 1; Petition (Paper 1), pp. 6-7.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`24
`
`
`
`Ravi and Goetz Teach Limitation [1.2.4]
`
`bit rate
`determination
`
`retransmission
`decision
`
`Goetz (EX1006), 14:21-29.
`
`Petition (Paper 1), pp. 24-26; Reply (Paper 15), pp. 16-20; Goetz (EX1006), 14:24-29, Fig. 13.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`25
`
`
`
`Ravi and Goetz Would Have Been Combined
`
`• Ravi considers whether there is “sufficient time to reasonably execute a
`timely retransmission” and is open to “modifications to the above
`disclosed algorithm.”
`
`Ravi (EX1005), 11:61-67.
`
`• Goetz and Ravi share the same philosophy: “if network resources are
`available, then they should be utilized … to increase the likelihood that the
`presentation will include more of the media information.”
`Goetz (EX1006), 15:18-23.
`
`• Goetz thus motivates a POSITA to incorporate bandwidth measures (e.g.,
`channel conditions) in making retransmission decision.
`
`Petition (Paper 1), pp. 28-30; Reply (Paper 15), pp. 17-23.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`
`
`Ravi and Goetz Would Have Been Combined
`• Patent Owner presents only bodily incorporation arguments: “in any
`combination of Ravi and Goetz, it would be a server, not a client, that
`decides whether or not to retransmit any missing packets.”
`
`• Patent Owner is wrong:
`• Institution Decision: “Petitioner argued, and Patent Owner has not rebutted, that
`although Goetz discloses making it retransmission decisions on the transmission
`end, an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that these teachings by Goetz are
`applicable to Ravi’s retransmission decisions on the client side.”
`• Patent Owner did not present any additional rebuttal evidence after institution.
`• Dr. Houh demonstrated that a POSITA would have applied the techniques of Goetz
`to the client-side determination in Ravi.
`
`Reply (Paper 15), pp. 21-23; Houh Supp. (EX1022), ¶¶ 60-62.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`27
`
`
`
`Zhu Teaches Limitation [1.2.4]
`
`Petition: “In sum, Zhu discloses that the “retransmission decision is made at the client based at least on the
`predetermined bandwidth budget and the estimated information loss rate on the packet data network” (which
`includes a calculation of the data rates of the streams, which teaches the use of the bit rates of previously
`received data packets)….”
`
`Institution Decision: “It is not clear on this preliminary record why the calculation of R'i is based on bit rates of
`previously received data packets.”
`
`Petition (Paper 1), pp. 44-47; Reply (Paper 15), pp. 23-27; Zhu (EX1008), 5:4-11, 8:61-64, 6:45-65.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`28
`
`
`
`Zhu Teaches Limitation [1.2.4]
`
`Petition (Paper 1), pp. 44-47; Reply (Paper 15), pp. 23-27; Zhu (EX1008), 6:63-65.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`29
`
`
`
`Zhu Teaches Limitation [1.2.4]
`72. Put another way, Zhu seeks to determine at what rate the server should continue to send video
`after examining the rate at which it was previously sending data and the number of packets lost on
`the network. The client makes the desired rate determination (i.e., the client mak[es] a
`retransmission decision), and it does so after examining the rate at which it was previously receiving
`data: the bit rates of previously received data packets.
`
`Petition (Paper 1), pp. 44-47; Reply (Paper 15), pp. 23-27; Houh Supp. (EX1022), ¶ 72.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`30
`
`
`
`Zhu Teaches Limitation [1.2.4] – Dr. Houh’s Example
`• Original data rate (Ri) of transmitting media streams is 25 kbps.
`• Predetermined bandwidth budget (G) is 30 kbps.
`
`• During transmission, certain packets requiring retransmission are lost.
`• Client subsequently determines the streaming rate (R’i) (desired rate) and
`number of copies for retransmission to not exceed predetermined bandwidth
`budget.
`
`• To accommodate the retransmission, the newly-set streaming rate is set to be
`less than the original data rate (the bit rates of previously received data
`packets) so that the total data transmission rate remains within the bandwidth
`budget.
`
`Houh Supp. (EX1022), ¶¶ 74-76; Reply (Paper 15), pp. 23-27.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`
`
`Undisputed POSITA Definition
`
`A POSITA “in the field of the ’038 Patent would have been someone with a good working
`knowledge of networking protocols, as well as computer systems (including servers) that
`support these protocols and techniques. The person also would be familiar with Internet
`standards related to communications, programming languages, database systems, and a
`variety of client-server systems and technologies.”
`
`“[T]he level of skill that a person of ordinary skill in the art needed to have the capability of
`understanding of network architecture, streaming media, content delivery, and network
`application design applicable to the ’038 Patent is (i) a Bachelor’s degree in Computer
`Science, Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, or equivalent training, and (ii) one to two
`years of work experience in network-based technologies.”
`
`Houh (EX1003), ¶¶ 45-46.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`
`
`Dr. Kaputa’s Testimony Should Not Be Considered
`
`• Patent Owner has not shown Dr. Kaputa has any work experience in
`network-based technologies, a good working knowledge of networking
`protocols,
`a
`familiarity with
`Internet
`standards
`related
`to
`communications, or experience with streaming media. Thus, he has not
`been shown to qualify as a POSITA.
`
`Reply (Paper 15), pp. 27-28; Motion to Exclude (Paper 20), Kaputa CV (EX2006).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`
`
`HAYNES BOONE
`
` UnifiedPatents’
`
`© 2022 Haynes and Boone, LLP
`© 2022 Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`34
`
`
`
`Ravi Teaches Limitation [1.2.4]
`
`“While the round trip time calculation in Ravi is performed in and results in a
`number measured in units of time (e.g., seconds or milliseconds), this
`calculation is based on the transmission speed of the network, as measured
`by examining previously received data packets.
`
`Indeed, even if the transmission speed of the network were not known, the
`round trip time would still be based on the transmission speed of the network,
`as the Board surmised: slower transmission speeds lead to longer round trip
`times, faster transmission speeds lead to slower round trip times, and
`retransmission is requested according to the round trip time at a given point in
`time.”
`
`Reply (Paper 15), p. 6; Houh Supp. (EX1022), ¶ 42.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`35
`
`
`
`Ravi and Goetz Teach Limitation [1.2.4]
`
`Petition (Paper 1), pp. 24-26; Reply (Paper 15), pp. 16-20; Goetz (EX1006), 15:17-23, Fig. 13.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`36
`
`
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
