Filed: September 28, 2021
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`Case No. IPR2021-01563
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`_________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,967,615
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I.
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged ............... 2
`II.
`III. Overview of Prior Art ...................................................................................... 3
`A. Al-Shaykh .............................................................................................. 3
`B. Qureshey ................................................................................................ 5
`C. Other Art in the Field ............................................................................ 8
`IV. The ’615 Patent ................................................................................................ 9
`V.
`The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................................... 11
`VI. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 11
`VII. The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable .................................................... 13
`A.
`Independent Claims 1, 13, and 25 ....................................................... 13
`1.
`Combining Al-Shaykh and Qureshey (Ground I) ..................... 13
`2.
`Al-Shaykh and Qureshey (Ground I) and Al-Shaykh,
`Qureshey, and Phillips (Ground II) Disclose Every
`Element of Claim 1 ................................................................... 16
`Claims 13 and 25....................................................................... 45
`3.
`B. Dependent Claims 6-12, 18-24, 27-29 ................................................ 49
`1.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 49
`2.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 52
`3.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 54
`4.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 55
`5.
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 55
`6.
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 56
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`7.
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 57
`Claims 18-24 and 27-29 ............................................................ 57
`8.
`C. Dependent Claims 2 and 14 ................................................................ 57
`1.
`Ramsay ...................................................................................... 58
`2.
`A POSA would have been motivated to add Ramsay to
`any of Grounds I-IV .................................................................. 61
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 64
`3.
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 69
`4.
`VIII. Non-Institution Under Section 325 Would Be Improper .............................. 69
`IX. The Board Should Not Exercise Its Discretion to Deny Institution
`Under Section 314(A) .................................................................................... 70
`A.
`Factor 1: Whether the district court granted a stay or a stay may
`be granted if a proceeding is instituted ............................................... 72
`Factor 2: Proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s
`projected statutory deadline for a final written decision ..................... 72
`Factor 3: Investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and
`the parties ............................................................................................ 72
`Factor 4: Overlap between issues raised in the petition and in
`the parallel proceeding ........................................................................ 73
`Factor 5: Whether the petitioner and the defendant in the
`parallel proceeding are the same party ................................................ 74
`Factor 6: Other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise
`of discretion, including the merits ....................................................... 75
`X. Grounds for Standing ..................................................................................... 75
`XI. Mandatory Notices ......................................................................................... 76
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest ........................................................................ 76
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`B.
`Related Matters .................................................................................... 76
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information ....................... 77
`C.
`XII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 78
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`3Shape A/S v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`IPR2020-00223, Paper 12 (PTAB May 26, 2020) ....................................... 74, 75
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 ................................................................................... 71
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) ......................................... 69, 70
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ...................................................................passim
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ. Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00133, Paper 15 (J. Crumbley dissenting) (PTAB May
`15, 2020) ............................................................................................................. 74
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ................................................................ 16, 40, 64
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 11
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C. ................................................ 11
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) ................................. 72, 73, 74
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) ................................... 70, 71, 74
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................. 70, 71
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ............................................................................................ 69, 70, 75
`Other Authorities
`85 Fed. Reg. 66 (Oct. 20, 2020) ............................................................................... 71
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615 to Coburn (“the ’615 patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`’615 Patent Prosecution History (U.S. App. No. 14/628,952)
`
`Ex. 1003 Declaration of Dr. Harry Bims (“Bims”)
`
`Ex. 1004 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Harry Bims
`
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2005/0251566 to Weel (“Weel”)
`
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent No. 8,799,496 to Phillips et al. (“Phillips”)
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2011/0131520 to Al-Shaykh et al. (“Al-
`Shaykh”)
`
`Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent No. 8,050,652 to Qureshey et al. (“Qureshey”)
`
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 8,724,600 to Ramsay et al. (“Ramsay”)
`
`Ex. 1010 Deposition Testimony Sonos’ Expert, Dr. Douglas Schmidt, in
`Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC, 6:20-cv-00881
`
`Ex. 1011 Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC, 6:20-cv-00881, Dkt. 60, Sonos’ Claim
`Construction Brief (W.D. Tex. April 27, 2021)
`
`Ex. 1012 Sonos’ List of Proposed Constructions exchanged in Sonos, Inc. v.
`Google LLC, 6:20-cv-00881 (W.D. Tex. April 2, 2021)
`
`Ex. 1013 Sonos Infringement Contentions exchanged in Sonos, Inc. v. Google
`LLC, 6:20-cv-00881
`
`Ex. 1014 U.S. Patent No. 8,935,580 to Bims
`
`Ex. 1015 U.S. Patent No. 8,468,426 to Bims
`
`Ex. 1016 Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC, 6:20-cv-00881, Markman Hearing
`Transcript (W.D. Tex. August 10, 2021)
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`Ex. 1017 Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC, 6:20-cv-00881, Preliminary
`Constructions Order (W.D. Tex. August 9, 2021)
`
`Ex. 1018 Scheduling Order, Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC, 6:20-cv-00881-ADA
`(W.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2021), ECF No. 48
`
`Ex. 1019 Declaration of Douglas C. Schmidt, Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC,
`6:20-cv-00881-ADA (W.D. Tex. April 27, 2021), ECF No. 60-24
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`In re: Google LLC, Case No. 2021-170, Order Granting Petition for
`Writ of Mandamus (Fed. Cir. 2021)
`
`Ex. 1021 U.S. Patent No. 8,611,317 to Banerjea
`
`Ex. 1022 U.S. Patent No. 8,184,641 to Alt et al.
`
`Ex. 1023 Shiann-Ysong Sheu and Chih-Chiang Wu, Dynamic access point
`approach (DAPA) for IEEE 802.11 wireless LANs, Gateway to 21st
`Century Communications Village. VTC 1999-Fall. IEEE VTS 50th
`Vehicular Technology Conference (Cat. No. 99CH36324), 1999, pp.
`2646-265.
`
`Ex. 1024 Correspondence to Sonos (September 27, 2021)
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`Introduction
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1-2, 6-14, 18-25, and 27-29
`
`(the challenged claims) of U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615. The claims relate to a
`
`networked media playback system that plays remote content provided by a remote
`
`media service. ’615 Pat., Abstract, 1:19-29. A control device (e.g., computer or
`
`mobile phone) connects to a local area network and identifies playback devices
`
`connected to the same network. Id., claims 1, 13, 25. It has a graphical user interface
`
`(GUI) with “transport controls” to control playback (e.g., resume, pause, play,
`
`forward, etc.), a “selectable option” to transfer playback, and other options to select
`
`a particular playback device for playback from a set of identified playback devices.
`
`Id., claims 1, 13, 25. When a user transfers playback to a particular playback device,
`
`a first cloud server adds multimedia content to the local playback queue on the
`
`particular playback device including resource locators identifying locations of
`
`multimedia content at a second cloud server. Id. Transferring also includes stopping
`
`playback at the control device and modifying the transport controls to control
`
`playback at the playback device. Id. The playback device retrieves multimedia
`
`content from the second cloud server to play back. Id.
`
`But prior-art patents and patent publications already disclosed such systems.
`
`For example, Al-Shaykh and Qureshey disclose the same dual-mode process where
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`the playback is transferred from a control device to a particular playback device. See
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`infra Section III.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner requests that the Board institute review and cancel the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`II.
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged
`Petitioners request review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 and cancelation of claims 1-
`
`2, 6-14, 18-25, and 27-29 in view of the following references, which are prior art
`
`under at least one of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b), and 102(e):
`
`Name
`
`U.S. Pat./Pub. Number Filing Date
`
`Publication Date
`
`Al-Shaykh 2011/0131520
`
`Nov. 29, 2010
`
`Jun. 2, 2011
`
`Qureshey
`
`8,050,652
`
`Nov. 27, 2006
`
`Apr. 19, 2007
`
`Phillips
`
`8,799,496
`
`Jul. 19, 2010
`
`May 10, 2012
`
`Ramsay
`
`8,724,600
`
`Jan. 7, 2009
`
`Jul. 16, 2009
`
`The following proposed obviousness grounds render the challenged claims
`
`unpatentable.
`
`Groun
`d
`I
`II
`
`
`
`
`
`Combined References
`
`Claims
`
`Al-Shaykh and Qureshey
`
`1, 6-13, 18-25, 27-29
`
`Al-Shaykh, Qureshey, and Phillips
`
`1, 6-13, 18-25, 27-29
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`III and
`IV
`
`Al-Shaykh, Qureshey, and Ramsay or Al-
`Shaykh, Qureshey, Phillips, and Ramsay
`III. Overview of Prior Art
`The ’615 patent was filed on February 23, 2015, and claims priority to the
`
`2 and 14
`
`filing date of U.S. Non-Provisional Patent No. 9,654,821, which is December 30,
`
`2011. Thus, December 30, 2011, is the ’615 patent’s earliest possible priority date.
`
`A. Al-Shaykh
`Al-Shaykh discloses a networked playback system operating in a “residential
`
`local area network” in which a user can switch playback from a mobile control
`
`device to external rendering on playback rendering devices (e.g., stereo, speaker,
`
`television, etc.). Al-Shaykh, Abstract, [0005], [0010], [0013], [0078], [0081]. The
`
`mobile device includes a graphic user interface (GUI) with media control buttons
`
`that initially can be used to control playback at the mobile device and subsequently
`
`used to control playback at the playback device once playback is transferred. Id.,
`
`[0088], [0092], [0132], Fig. 2. The GUI further includes selectable buttons to
`
`(i) transfer playback from the mobile device to the rendering device, e.g., set of
`
`controls and indications 35 in Fig. 2, and (ii) chose a particular rendering device
`
`from a list of available devices that are connected to a local network, e.g., selecting
`
`an available renderer 77 from renderer menu 75, as shown in Fig. 6. Id., [0089],
`
`[0099], [0105-07], [0133-34], [0118-23], Figs. 2-6.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`
`
`Al-Shaykh, Figures 2 and 6
`
`After a user provides input to transfer playback to a particular rendering
`
`device, the rendering device directly retrieves media content to playback from a
`
`remote content service that is associated with a remote content provider. Id.,
`
`[0020], [0093-95]. The content is retrieved through a connection from the home
`
`network to other networks, such as the Internet. Id., [0080], [0004].
`
`Al-Shaykh is analogous to the ’615 patent because it is in the same field of
`
`endeavor, providing functionality to transfer media playback from one device to
`
`another. ’615 Patent, Abstract, Claim 1; In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004); see Bims, ¶¶41-48. For example, Al-Shaykh, like the ’615 patent,
`
`explains that it is directed to “transfer[ing] media content from a mobile device to a
`
`home network [including] … rendering devices in the home network” Al-Shaykh,
`
`Abstract. Thus, Al-Shaykh is analogous art to the ’615 patent. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
`
`at 1325.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`B. Qureshey
`Qureshey similarly discloses a networked playback system containing a PC
`
`device (e.g., PC IPAN Client in Fig. 11) and a “network-enabled audio device”
`
`(e.g., Device B in Fig. 11). Qureshey, 3:34-39, 16:56-60, Figs. 1-2, 11, 15.
`
`
`
`Qureshey, Figure 11
`
`It generally describes using software on a PC device to add information related to
`
`the content into the storage of the audio device and control playback of content on
`
`the audio device from various audio sources. Id., 23:28-50, 24:31-25:41, 21:62-67,
`
`24:26-30, Figs. 6B, 17A-17H.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`Qureshey, Figure 17C
`
`
`
`Qureshey provides disclosures detailing how a POSITA may effectuate
`
`transferring of playback from one device to another device, as disclosed in Al-
`
`Shaykh and described in Section III.A. For example, Qureshey’s PC device
`
`controls and manages the network-enabled audio device, including the storage and
`
`playback of playlists on the audio device. Id. To playback content on the audio
`
`device, Qureshey’s system utilizes an “IPAN server” that adds playlists of a list of
`
`audio files and uniform resource locators (URLs) in the storage space of the audio
`
`device. Id. The URLs identify the source and location of the content that can be
`
`played back. Id., 3:45-56, 7:47-65, 10:64-11:2, 21:62-67, 22:43-67. The URLs
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`allow the network-enabled audio device to retrieve audio content from various
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`remote sources. Id., 34:5-35, 22:48-58, 14:32-47, 2:40-46, 4:62-64, Fig. 6B. Thus,
`
`Qureshey’s IPAN server helps ensure the network-enabled audio device can
`
`retrieve content to playback from remote sources.
`
`Qureshey, Figure 6B
`
`
`
`Qureshey is analogous to the ’615 patent because it is in the same field of
`
`endeavor, providing functionality to “facilitate connection to a multimedia
`
`playback network” including the transfer and distribution of multimedia content
`
`over the Internet to playback devices. ’615 Patent, Abstract, Claim 1; In re Bigio,
`
`381 F.3d at 1325; see Bims, ¶¶49-57. For example, Qureshey, like the ’615 patent,
`
`explains that it is directed to the “the field of audio file transfers and, more
`
`particularly, relates to the field of management and distribution of audio files over
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`a computer network such as the Internet,” including to network-enabled audio
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`devices. Qureshey, 1:20-25, 2:15-33. Thus, Qureshey is analogous art to the ’615
`
`patent. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325.
`
`C. Other Art in the Field
`At the time of the invention, other art also already disclosed the subject
`
`matter claimed by the ’615 patent. See Bims, ¶¶58-63; For example, Weel also
`
`discloses a networked playback system including a first device (e.g., “handheld
`
`portable device”) that acts as a remote control for a second device (e.g., “music
`
`rendering device” such as “one or more smart speakers”) within a local area
`
`network. Weel, [0016-17], [0071], [0077-78], Fig. 1. The first device may
`
`playback the content itself or transfer playback to a second device. Id., [0088],
`
`[0105-117]. It includes a display and keypad to allow users to select songs for
`
`playback and a second device to play the song. Id., [0080], [0105-06], Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`
`
`Weel, Figure 1
`
`Weel provides disclosures detailing how a POSITA may effectuate
`
`transferring of playback from one device to another device, as disclosed in Al-
`
`Shaykh and described in Section III.A. For example, after a user selects a second
`
`device for playback of content, the playlist server stores playlists. Weel, [0092],
`
`[0111]. The second device takes over playback of content that was originally being
`
`played at the first device and the second device retrieves content for playback from
`
`remote sources. Id., [0090], [0100-01], [0084], [0086].
`
`IV. The ’615 Patent
`The ’615 patent discloses allowing a user to transfer streaming of remote
`
`content from a computing device (e.g., laptop or mobile phone) to a playback device
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`(e.g., speaker, multimedia unit (such as a television), etc.) in a local area network.
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`’615 Pat., 1:19-28, 2:6-25, 3:28-31, 12:44-67, 13:14-22, 13:54-56; see Bims, ¶¶64-
`
`67. The computing device or controller (used interchangeably) provides a GUI for
`
`“navigat[ing] a playlist of many multimedia items and [] control[ing] operations of
`
`one or more [playback devices].” ’615 Pat., 3:28-33, 9:10-48, 11:39-44.
`
`A local playback network includes playback devices and a computing device
`
`connected to the “cloud (e.g., Internet).” Id., 11:58-12:67. This allows either device
`
`to fetch content from a third-party service via the cloud or Internet. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’615 Pat., Figure 7
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`When a playback device is configured for playback of content, it can “access
`
`the Internet [to] retriev[e] media from the cloud (e.g., Internet).” “For example, zone
`
`player 602 may contain a uniform resource locator (URL) that specifies an address
`
`to a particular audio track in the cloud.” Id., at 11:65-67.
`
`V. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in physics, mechanical
`
`engineering, electrical engineering, or audio engineering (or an equivalent degree),
`
`and three years of experience designing or implementing networked wireless
`
`systems related to streaming media over the Internet. Bims, ¶¶20-23. With more
`
`education, for example, postgraduate degrees and/or study, less experience is needed
`
`to attain an ordinary level of skill in the art. Similarly, more experience can substitute
`
`for formal education. Id. Sonos proposed a slightly different level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art; however, the differences are immaterial to the outcome. See Ex. 1019 at ¶
`
`27; Bims, ¶24.
`
`VI. Claim Construction
`The Board construes claims consistent with Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claims should only be
`
`construed to the extent necessary to resolve a controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`In the related litigation, before the case was transferred, the District Court
`
`for the Western District of Texas held that the following terms that appear in the
`
`’615 patent should be construed to their plain and ordinary meanings:
`
`“multimedia,” “network interface,” “playback device,” and “local area network.”
`
`Exs. 1016-1017. Additionally, although dropped from consideration before
`
`argument and ruling, and thus not construed by the Texas district court, Sonos and
`
`the defendants agreed to construe “one or more transport controls to control
`
`playback” as “one or more user input elements, each enabling control of a
`
`respective playback-related function.” Ex. 1012 at 4. Additionally, Sonos proposed
`
`construing “wireless communication interface” as “physical component of a device
`
`that provides a wireless interconnection with a local area network.” Id. at 3.
`
`Sonos also asserted the plain and ordinary meaning for the following claim
`
`terms: “first cloud servers,” “second cloud servers of a streaming content service,”
`
`and “playback queue.” Id. at 4. For the purposes of this IPR, Google adopts the
`
`constructions of the District Court for the Western District of Texas and Sonos’s
`
`proposed claim constructions for those terms not presented for construction and
`
`construed by the district court. See Bims, ¶¶38-40.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`VII. The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable
`The challenged claims are unpatentable under four grounds based on the Al-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`Shaykh reference. All grounds establish that each of the challenged claims would
`
`have been obvious. See Bims, ¶¶68-69.
`
`A.
`Independent Claims 1, 13, and 25
`Al-Shaykh and Qureshey (Ground I) render independent claims 1, 13, and
`
`25 unpatentable. See Bims, ¶ 70. Al-Shaykh discloses the base media playback
`
`system including a mobile control device with a GUI that enables a user to transfer
`
`playback to a rendering device and functionality to allow the rendering device to
`
`retrieve content for playback from a remote source. Qureshey discloses media
`
`playback systems with servers that provide different functionality including a first
`
`set of at least one server that adds information to the playback device that identifies
`
`the location of multimedia content to be played back and a second set of at least
`
`one server that is associated with a content service and stores the content to be
`
`played back. Lastly, to the extent Patent Owner argues that Ground I does not
`
`disclose element [1-g], Al-Shaykh, Qureshey, and Phillips (Ground II) also
`
`disclose this element.
`
`1.
`Combining Al-Shaykh and Qureshey (Ground I)
`A POSA would have been motivated to and would have found it obvious to
`
`combine Al-Shaykh and Qureshey for several reasons. Bims, ¶¶71-78.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`Al-Shaykh and Qureshey are in the same field of endeavor, deal with similar
`
`devices, and are directed to solving the same problems in those devices. Bims, ¶72.
`
`For example, Qureshey generally “relates to the field of audio file transfers [to
`
`network-enabled audio devices] and, more particularly, relates to the field of
`
`management and distribution of audio files over a computer network such as the
`
`Internet.” Qureshey, 1:16-33, 2:16-33, 24:31-43, 16:29-17:31, 21:40-23:5, Figs.
`
`11, 15, 17B. Qureshey also discusses storing playlists onto a rendering device. Id.,
`
`Abstract, 17:2-31. Similarly, Al-Shaykh discusses organizing media, playlists, and
`
`transferring playback of media content from a mobile phone to a rendering device
`
`and media content is streamed from the Internet. Al-Shaykh, Abstract, [0080],
`
`[0082], [0011], [00087], [00090], [00092]. Thus, both references enable users to
`
`transfer playback to various devices and playback content on those devices from
`
`the Internet, which provides much greater accessibility to content than traditional
`
`systems that were limited to playback of content locally stored on the network.
`
`Qureshey, 1:37-52 (“With streaming audio, a user with a Personal Computer (PC),
`
`a sound card, and the necessary software can listen to audio programs from
`
`anywhere in the world.”); Al-Shaykh, [0090]; Bims, ¶72.
`
`Further, both references describe networked media playback systems that
`
`include a control device and one or more rendering devices. See Bims, ¶73. Al-
`
`Shaykh, Abstract, [0078], Fig. 1 (showing mobile device 11 and rendering devices
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`21, 22, 23 in home network 20; Qureshey, Fig. 11 (showing PC IPAN client 1106
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`and networked-enabled audio devices 1108, 1110), 16:29-17:31, 2:65-3:4, 3:57-4:3
`
`(describing that the PC and devices are connected via a local area network). Thus,
`
`Al-Shaykh and Qureshey involve similar media playback systems that are often
`
`used in homes or offices and allow users the flexibility of playing content on
`
`various device configurations for different scenarios. See Al-Shaykh, [0005] (“the
`
`user may render the music content on a high quality stereo in the home instead of
`
`being limited to playback using the mobile device.”); Qureshey, 2:16-20 (“The
`
`present invention solves these and other problems by providing a network-enabled
`
`audio device for listening to a variety of audio sources with substantially equal
`
`convenience”). A POSA would also have been motivated to combine these
`
`references to develop an improved GUI for control devices in a multimedia
`
`playback network. Bims, ¶73.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`Al-Shaykh, Fig. 1
`
`Qureshey, Fig. 11
`
`Additionally, the references are directed toward solving similar problems.
`
`See Bims, ¶¶74-77. For example, Al-Shaykh and Qureshey disclose methods to
`
`transfer playback of media content from a control device to a playback device such
`
`that the user can still control playback and conduct other tasks from the control
`
`device. Qureshey, 2:3-13 (“Moreover, even if the user can afford to purchase
`
`multiple PC’s and install the proper connection, the user would have difficulty
`
`playing music in addition to performing other tasks on the PC.”), 1:65-2:12, 4:1-3;
`
`Al-Shaykh, [0053] (discussing external rendering of content on rendering devices
`
`which would allow users to use the mobile control device for other tasks). These
`
`media playback systems provide a cheaper option that mixes expensive control
`
`devices, such as PCs, with low-cost devices, such as rendering devices. Qureshey,
`
`1:65-2:12, 4:1-3, 1:27-36, 2:58-3:4; Al-Shaykh, [0004].
`
`Based on at least the reasons noted above, Al-Shaykh and Qureshey are
`
`analogous art to the ’615 patent, and a POSA would have found it obvious to
`
`combine them. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Bims, ¶ 78.
`
`2.
`
`Al-Shaykh and Qureshey (Ground I) and Al-Shaykh,
`Qureshey, and Phillips (Ground II) Disclose Every Element
`of Claim 1
`Grounds I and II disclose all elements of claim 1, as defined below:
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`Element [1-a]
`Element [1-b]
`Element [1-c]
`
`Element [1-d]
`
`Element [1-e]
`
`Element [1-f]
`
`Element [1-g]
`Element [1-h]
`
`Element [1-i]
`
`
`
`a.
`Element [1-a]
`Al-Shaykh discloses a method comprising:1 causing, via a control device
`
`(e.g., “mobile device”), a graphical interface to display a control interface (e.g.,
`
`“user interface 31” displaying media controls interface) including one or more
`
`transport controls to control playback by the control device (e.g., “media controls
`
`
`1 Claim language in italics throughout
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`42” to “control rendering of music files on the mobile device 11”), as recited in
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`element [1-a]. Al-Shaykh, [0078], [0085], [0088], [0092], Fig. 2; Bims, ¶¶79-80.
`
`Although the term was not presented to the district court for construction and was
`
`thus not construed by the district court, Al-Shaykh’s media controls 42 also meet
`
`the construction agreed-upon of “one or more transport controls to control
`
`playback” in the related litigation because the media controls are user input
`
`elements that enable control of playback related functions. See Ex. 1012 at 3
`
`(construing the term as “one or more user input elements, each enabling control of
`
`a respective playback-related function”).
`
`Al-Shaykh discloses a “mobile device” with a “user interface 31” that
`
`includes various components, including a media controls interface area. Al-
`
`Shaykh, [0078] (“The mobile device 11 may have a display screen capable of
`
`displaying user interface elements and/or visual media content.”) (emphasis
`
`added), [0085-88], [0092], Figs. 1-2, 12. Specifically, the media controls interface
`
`area includes “media controls 42,” which are elements used to “control rendering
`
`of music files on the mobile device 11.” Id, [0092], [0088] (“The media controls 42
`
`may enable the user 12 to control media-related tasks, such as, for example,
`
`creation, discovery, selection, organization, management, manipulation and/or
`
`rendering of the media content 15”) (emphasis added). Thus, Al-Shaykh discloses
`
`this limitation, even under Sonos’s interpretation, because it discloses the mobile
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`device causing a user interface 31 to display a media controls interface area, which
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615
`
`includes one or more media controls 42 to control media-related tasks and
`
`rendering on the mobile device. See Bims, ¶¶79-80.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Al-Shaykh, Figure 1 (annotated)
`
`Al-Shaykh, Figure 2 (annotated)
`
`b.
`Element [1-b]
`Al-Shaykh discloses a method comprising, after connecting to a local area
`
`network via a network interface (e.g., “mobile device 11” connecting to a “home
`
`network 20”), identifying, via the control device, playback devices connected to the
`
`local area network (e.g., “mobile device” identifies “additions and/or [] deletions”
`
`of rendering devices connected the “home network 20”), as recited in element [1-
`
`b]. Al-Shaykh, [0005], [0078], [0080], [0034], [01