Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 32
`Entered: January 31, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 18, 2023
`______________
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 32
`Entered: January 31, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 18, 2023
`______________
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ERIKA ARNER, ESQ.
`CORY BELL, ESQ.
`KARA SPECHT, ESQ.
`UMBER AGGARWAL, ESQ.
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett, & Dunner, LLP
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`cory.bell@finnegan.com
`kara.specht@finnegan.com
`umber.aggarwal@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`COLE RICHTER, ESQ.
`MICHAEL BOYEA, ESQ.
`JOHN SMITH, ESQ.
`DAVID GROSBY, ESQ.
`Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP
`richter@ls3ip.com
`boyea@ls3ip.com
`smith@ls3ip.com
`grosby@ls3ip.com
`
`JEFFREY ARMSTRONG, ESQ.
`Akerman LLP
`jeffrey.armstrong@akerman.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`
`January 18, 2023, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EST.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
`1:00 p.m.
`JUDGE ZECHER: This is an oral hearing for IPR2021-01563. The patent at
`issue is Patent 9,967,615. The claims at issue are Claims 1, 2, 6 through 14,
`18 through 25, and 27 through 29.
`
`For Petitioner, we have Google, LLC, and for Patent Owner, we have
`Sonos, Inc. Let’s start by taking an appearance from the parties, and then I’m
`going to quickly cover our COVID protocol after that. So let’s start with
`Petitioner, please.
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: Hello, Your Honor. This is Umbar Aggarwal for
`Cory Bell and Erika Arner for Petitioner, Google.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: For Patent Owner?
`
`MR. BOYEA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is Mike Boyea on
`behalf of Sonos. With me is Sonos in-house counsel, Chris Butts.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Thank you very much. All right, so as you can
`see, our protocols changed since we had the last hearing with the parties.
`We’re all in masks.
`
`You have some flexibility, if the parties are amenable to this, we’ll
`allow you, when you come up to the lectern, to remove your mask during
`oral argument. The panel may do so as well when asking questions, just, so,
`for clarity of the record, and it doesn’t sound muffled through the
`microphone.
`
`But let me just get your confirmation that you’re okay with this
`procedure. Petitioner, is that all right with you?
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: Yes, that works for us.
`
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Patent Owner?
`
`MR. BOYEA: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay, all right. So we issued an oral argument
`
`order in this case, it was paper number 28. We gave each party 45 minutes
`aside. We understand that there’s a LEAP practitioner, Mr. Aggarwal, in this
`proceeding. So the Petitioner is going to get an extra 15 minutes. So that
`means Petitioner gets 60 minutes and Patent Owner gets 45.
`
`So let’s get this started. Petitioner, go ahead and prepare to get started,
`and let me know how much rebuttal time you want to reserve.
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: Thank you, Judge. We’ll reserve 15 minutes for
`rebuttal.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: All right, let me know when you’re ready to begin.
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: I’m ready. May it please the Board, my name is
`Umbar Aggarwal, and I represent the Petitioner, Google. This proceeding is
`challenging the '615 patent, which is directed towards a network media
`playback system that includes a control device; that’s highlighted in red, and
`a playback device; that’s highlighted in green.
`
`JUDGE BAER: And what slide are you on, please, counsel?
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: I’m on slide 2.
`
`JUDGE BAER: Thank you.
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: The '615 patent includes the first cloud server;
`that’s highlighted in orange. The first cloud server adds resource locators to
`playback devices, and the playback devices use those resource locators to
`retrieve content from a second cloud server, which is highlighted in blue.
`
`Moving to slide 3, this guide overviews the four obvious grounds that
`Petitioner presents in this Petition. Just one note: for the mappings that rely
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`
`on Phillips’s or Ramsay’s disclosures, Patent Owner only disputes motivation
`to combine and does not dispute those specific mappings.
`
`Moving to slide 4, this slide shows the seven issues that the Patent
`Owner has raised. We plan to focus on the first four issues, which are
`directed towards the independent claims. But we’re happy to answer any
`questions about the other issues.
`
`We’ll move to slide 5, Sonos raised a lot of arguments that are based
`on misinterpretations of the references. So before diving into the issues, I’d
`like to go over Al-Shaykh and Qureshey, which are the two main references
`that we were at on the Petition.
`
`Al-Shaykh, as slide 5 shows, discloses a network media playback
`system, just like the '615 patent. They include a mobile device, which is the
`control device, as highlighted in red. It includes rendering devices, which are
`the playback devices highlighted in green. It also includes a home network
`that allows these devices to communicate locally, and it explains that these
`devices can play back music playlists.
`
`Moving to slide 6, Al-Shaykh also explains, or also discloses a remote
`content provider. Now, this remote content provider provides content to the
`system devices over the internet. So the playback devices and control
`devices are able to receive content from this remote content provider over the
`internet.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: So would this be like Spotify, for example?
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: That would be accurate, yes. Moving to slide 7,
`Al-Shaykh also discloses three different content sources. Now, Sonos
`focuses on the first two content sources listed in this slide, but the Petitioner
`actually maps to the third content source. The first two content sources are
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`
`direct sorts of local content sources, such as the mobile device or a local
`media server. But the Petitioner actually maps to the remote content
`provider, which we’ve just discussed in the last slide, that provides content
`from a remote device.
`
`Moving to slide 8, now we will show where content is stored in Al-
`Shaykh, but Al-Shaykh also discloses how content flows to the rendering
`devices for playback. There are two different options, the first of which is --
`on this slide, is the one that Sonos focuses on in their arguments. But option
`2 is on the next slide -- is the one that’s actually used in the Petitioner’s
`mapping in the Petition.
`
`Option 1, as shown in slide 8, talks about an indirect content flow. So
`content has to go through the mobile device and flow through the mobile
`device before reaching the rendering devices. For example, content may be
`stored at the remote content provider or the local media content server, and
`it’s transmitted to the mobile device before it can go to the rendering devices
`for playback. Alternatively, content may already be stored at the mobile
`device and is transmitted directly to rendering devices for playback. In all
`three instances, content has to flow through the mobile device before it
`reaches the rendering device.
`
`Now option 2, which is on slide 9, discusses a second way the content
`can flow to the rendering devices. This is a direct content flow in which
`content is not -- does not flow through the mobile device. Instead, for
`example, it can be -- content can be stored by the remote content provider or
`local media server, and it directly flows to the rendering devices for
`playback.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`
`Now I’d like to move on to Qureshey on slide 10 and discuss Qureshey
`
`a little bit. Qureshey, like Al-Shaykh, and like the '615 patent, also discloses
`a network media playback system. It includes a control device, which is
`highlighted in red as the IPAN -- PC IPAN client. It includes playback
`devices, which are highlighted in green. It explains that these devices are
`connected locally over a local area network, so they can communicate
`locally, but also connected to the internet, so those system devices can
`communicate over the internet to remote devices. This system also includes a
`first cloud server, which is the IPAN server.
`
`Moving to slide 11, Qureshey provides additional features pertinent for
`the Petition -- the mapping of the Petition. It explains first that the user is
`able to use a PC client to compose playlists. It also explains that the
`playback device includes in it the playback queue, which is a storage space
`1512. And lastly, it talks about the first cloud server, which is the IPAN
`server, adding a playlist of URL’s to the local playback queue of the
`playback device in the (audio interference) procedure.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Counsel, let me ask you a question about this
`mapping for the local playback queue here, which I understand it to be
`Element 1512 in Qureshey, is that correct?
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: Yes, that’s correct.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: And so that was just a queue in a device that can
`play back a song verses, what I understand Patent Owner argued that is a
`playback queue, it’s something different than something that just stores a
`playlist?
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: Yes, so a playback queue is different than just a
`playlist, Judge, because a playback queue, it’s for the playback as well. So
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`
`it’s not just storing the list itself, but it’s being -- the playlist is being used
`and processed to retrieve content and then play back that content.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: I guess I’m struggling to understand the difference
`between just a list of songs that I can grab in a queue and play it, I mean, I --
`how is that not a playback?
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: If that -- the list of songs is just stored, then it
`wouldn’t be a playback queue. But if it’s being used to effectuate playback,
`it would be a playback queue.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: When you say used to effectuate playback, I mean,
`I think I understood the invention to be along the lines of, you know, I’m
`listening to a song on my phone, I walk in my house, I’m at 1:30 on the song,
`and I can then transfer that song into speakers and whatever system in my
`house, which would then pick up the song at 1:31.
`
`So when we say playback, does it need to be, for example, in the
`middle of a song? Or can it start from the beginning and just -- what if I
`intend to play the song before I walk into the house, but I don’t actually start
`it, and I want to start it when I get in the house. Is that enough for playback
`or --
`MR. AGGARWAL: Playback is, as far as it’s self-defined, is
`
`essentially to -- causing the device to be rendering the content. So I think
`that the question is whether it was enough for playback, and the playback
`place is rendering the content that would be played back.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay, thank you.
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: We’ll move to slide 12. Qureshey also discloses
`multiple operation modes for the playback device. Qureshey discloses two
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`
`modes in specific. One is internet radio mode of operation, and another is a
`playlist mode of operation.
`
`Now, Sonos argues that we rely on disclosures from two different --
`both of these modes of operation. But as shown in slide 13, we only allow
`the playlist mode of operation. And in this playlist mode of operation, what
`happens is that the IPAN server, which is the first cloud server, adds a
`playlist of URL’s to the playback device, and then the playback device uses
`that playlist of URL’s to retrieve content from a remote source. And the
`remote source is the second cloud server depicted here, which are the remote
`audio sources in blue.
`
`Now, it’s important to note that Qureshey explains what type of
`conduct these playlist URL’s can point to; it’s a variety of types. For
`example, in Qureshey column 3, lines 5 to 12, it explains that these playlist
`URL’s can point to internet streaming audio broadcasts, online music sites,
`and other audio sources. And audio source is the same language used in
`Figure 6B, which includes the blue highlight on those audio sources.
`
`Now moving on to slide 14, this slide overviews Al-Shaykh and
`Qureshey systems that we just discussed, and there’s a lot of similarities as
`we’ve been talking about. And when looking at the combination, there’s --
`when you look at the combination completely, the similarities that are at the
`beginning and the end are almost identical.
`
`For example, at the beginning, you have rendering playback devices
`that playback content. At the end, you have the playback device retrieving
`content from a second cloud server. The middle details are what is not as
`clearly defined in Al-Shaykh. And exactly how the playlist is transferred to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`
`the rendering device, and how the rendering device uses a playlist, is not
`clear in Al-Shaykh.
`
`And that is what Qureshey is used for in our combination. Qureshey
`explains that to transfer the playlist when transfer is enabled, to transmit the
`playlist to the rendering device, you need an IPAN cloud server to do so.
`
`And Qureshey also explains that the rendering device will retrieve
`content from a second cloud server because it knows the locations of that
`content through the URL’s in the playlist itself. So is uses the playlist that
`includes URL’s, as Qureshey teaches us, to retrieve the content for the
`second cloud server.
`
`Now, I’d like to move on to the issues themselves, and I’m -- I’d like
`to move on to slide 16. Now, the first issue Patent Owner raises is with
`reference to the transferring playback limitations. These limitations appear in
`a few different elements, but the concept of transferring playback is the same
`throughout. It is merely referring to transferring playback, or rendering from
`one device to another.
`
`And moving on to slide 17, Sonos argues that Al-Shaykh does not
`disclose transferring playback, but only discloses transferring media content,
`but this is not correct. As Al-Shaykh teaches us, in Figure 2, it depicts a
`media application that a user would see on the mobile device. This media
`application includes multiple inputs, including input 35, which is to enable or
`disable transfer.
`
`And paragraph 92 in Al-Shaykh explains to us that when transfer is
`disabled and a user selects a playlist, it is played at the mobile device. But
`then when transfer is enabled, that playback is transferred at the rendering
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`
`device, and the playlist that was initially played at the mobile device is now
`played back at the rendering device.
`
`I’d like to move on to slide 19 for the next issue. And the next issue
`Patent Owner raises is with respect to the playback queue issue. And this
`appears in Limitation 1F. Now, slide 20 overviews the two constructions that
`are at dispute in this proceeding. But under either construction, Qureshey
`discloses the playback queue.
`
`The first construction is the one that was adopted in the Petition, and it
`was the plain and ordinary meaning of the playback queue. And Petitioner
`adopted his construction based on the Board’s decision in Western Digital
`that permits Petitioner to rely on a Patent Owner’s litigation construction as -
`- to be used as part of the Petition.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Quick question about that litigation construction.
`Was playback queue actually a term at issue in the corresponding district
`court case? Because I didn’t see it in the briefing.
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: It was not. It was dropped before the briefing
`started, Your Honor. I believe it was a proposed term initially.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay, thank you.
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: The second construction at issue is Patent
`Owner’s new construction in the POR. But again, as stated earlier, either --
`under either construction, Qureshey discloses the playback queue.
`
`Moving on to slide 21, this slide shows how Qureshey discloses the
`playback queue under the first construction. And Patent Owner does not
`actually dispute this.
`
`To understand what the plain and ordinary meaning of playback queue
`is, we can look at Patent Owner’s expert’s own words. He explained that the
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`
`plain and ordinary meaning of playback queue is a data construct that can
`contain one or more resource locators, such as URL’s, where each resource
`locator facilitates a computing device performing a task or function. That is
`what we have in Qureshey. It discloses a playback device with a storage
`space 1512, where we store a playlist of URL’s, and these URL’s enable the
`playback device to perform a task, which is trading content from a second
`cloud server.
`
`Even if we look at, and I’m moving on to slide 22, even if we look at
`the second construction, Qureshey still discloses a playback queue. This
`second construction merely adds a requirement that the playback device must
`be set to play the playlist. But Qureshey discloses this. If you look at
`columns 35 to 36, Qureshey explains that the playback device receives the
`playlist of URL’s, uses that information to obtain songs from a remote
`source, and then playback the content that it retrieves, as indicated by the
`playlist.
`
`I’d like to move on to the next issue on slide 24. The next issue Patent
`Owner raises is with respect to Limitation 1G. But it’s important to note that
`Petitioner raises three different arguments for this limitation. First, that Al-
`Shaykh teaches Limitation 1G; second, that Al-Shaykh renders obvious this
`limitation; and third, that Phillips discloses Limitation 1G.
`
`Now, the Board does not need to read -- the Board can resolve
`Limitation 1G with either Petitioner’s second or third argument. And the
`third argument is not disputed by Sonos. They do not dispute that Phillips
`discloses Limitation 1G.
`
`With respect to the second argument, I’d like to go to slide 25. And in
`the second argument, Al-Shaykh renders obvious Limitation 1G, based on
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`
`disclosing the functionality that’s required. If we go back one slide real
`quick, Limitation 1G requires causing playback to stop at the control device
`when playback is transferred to the rendering device from the control device.
`
`And moving back to slide 25, what Al-Shaykh discloses is that
`playback can be transferred from one rendering device to another rendering
`device. And when that happens, playback at the first rendering device is
`stopped. And Sonos does not dispute that this functionality is disclosed in
`Al-Shaykh. They agree that it is.
`
`And Dr. Benz has explained to us that this is the exact functionality we
`need to stop playback at a control device when you transfer playback from a
`control device to a playback device. And because that is the case,
`incorporating this into Al-Shaykh’s system, it would render Limitation 1G
`obvious.
`
`I’d like to move on to the next issue, on slide 28. The next issue
`Patent Owner raises is with respect to Limitation 1I. And again, for this
`limitation we raise two arguments: one that the Al-Shaykh alone discloses
`Limitation 1I; and the second one, that Al-Shaykh in combination with
`Qureshey discloses Limitation 1I.
`
`Now, Patent Owner argues that for the combination, Patent Owner
`only argues that -- only attacks the references individually. But it’s well
`understood law that attacking references individually does not overcome an
`obviousness argument, which is what we have here with the combination.
`
`For example, for the first one, for the Al-Shaykh mapping, Sonos only
`argues that Al-Shaykh does not disclose retrieving multimedia content from
`one or more second cloud servers. But it does not argue that Qureshey does
`not disclose this, which Qureshey does.
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`
`And also, for the Qureshey mapping, Sonos argues that Qureshey does
`
`not disclose a control device causing the particular playback device to play
`back the multimedia content. But it does not argue that Al-Shaykh does not
`disclose this, which Al-Shaykh does. So because Patent Owner does not
`raise a challenge attacking the combination, it -- the combination should be
`undisputed.
`
`Even if we put that argument aside, we can also look at Al-Shaykh, on
`slide 29, that Al-Shaykh by itself discloses Limitation 1I. We discussed how
`there’s a direct content flow disclosure in Al-Shaykh where content, it goes
`from the remote content provider to the rendering devices, and this is exactly
`what Limitation 1I is asking for. It asks for the playback device to retrieve
`content from the remote content provider, and that’s exactly what Al-Shaykh
`discloses.
`
`And if there’s no questions, I would save the rest of my time for
`rebuttal.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Actually, I do have some questions about the
`motivation to combine. I know Patent Owner presented some arguments
`about that. When I looked through your Petition, it looks like, I think, you
`addressed motivation to combine, at least Al-Shaykh and Qureshey, at pages
`13 through 16, if I’m correct here.
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: That’s right.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: But reading over that section, it doesn’t seem like
`there really is a specific reason why we’re taking certain features from Al-
`Shaykh and Qureshey and combining them with specific teachings of
`Qureshey. It rather just seems like this whole section is devoted to saying
`that they’re essentially analogous art, or they address similar subject matter.
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`
`But I understand you argue these, as you map out certain claims, that
`
`you get into more specific reasons. Is that fair to say?
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: That is correct, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: So it’s not just this section alone --
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: Correct.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: -- that we need to be looking at. Can you maybe
`hone in on what your more specific reasons are for the combination? I think
`the section by which I’m referring to, let me just scroll down here, I think it
`was one of 30’s here. But could you get into more specific reasons starting
`on 33 and maybe spanning 34? Is there something in there that we should be
`focusing on for this so-called pivotal requirement of obviousness of
`motivation to combine?
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: Yes, Judge. In there, what the specific
`motivation to combine, and I -- we agree with your characterization of the
`Petition. We presented general motivations to combine initially, but for each
`limitation, we provide specific motivation to combine for those specific
`elements.
`
`In the Petition pages 30 to 34, we do discuss how one would be
`motivated to look at Al-Shaykh and not understand fully how exactly Al-
`Shaykh plays back a playlist. And that’s the key. Al-Shaykh includes
`playing back a playlist on a mobile device, we would discuss paragraph 92,
`and Al-Shaykh did this. And then when transfer is enabled, that playlist is
`then played back at the rendering device.
`
`But to be able to facilitate playback, the playlist has to be transferred to
`the rendering device, and that’s what Qureshey first teaches us; that it uses an
`IPAN server to transmit that playlist to the rendering device itself.
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`
`Another point that’s not clear in Al-Shaykh, as the details are not
`
`there, is that how does a rendering device use a playlist to be able to retrieve
`content for that remote content provider, that remote source. And what
`Qureshey explicitly tells us is that the playlist includes URL’s that point to
`locations in the second cloud server and allows the rendering device to
`retrieve content, the content it needs to play in the playlist, and then plays
`that playlist back.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: So if you could kind of sum up, maybe in a few
`short words, what is the rationale that you’re actually latching on to in these
`pages, on 30 through 34?
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: Just that Qureshey explicitly teaches us how to
`transmit and use playlists to play back remote content.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay, and that is the benefit it provides to Al-
`Shaykh? Is -- that’s the improvement, so to speak? Is that what you’re
`saying?
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: No, we actually rely on a Federal Circuit case,
`Real-Time Data, that discusses that when a second reference more explicitly
`teaches something that’s disclosed in a first reference, then that’s sufficient
`motivation to combine.
`
`JUDGE BAER: So it’s sort of implementation details, is that correct?
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: Yes, that’s what -- yes, Judge, that’s exactly it.
`It’s the implementation details that a person of skill would need to
`understand to be able to facilitate retrieving content from a remote source.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay, I don’t have any further questions. Judge
`Baer?
`
`JUDGE BAER: No.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Judge McMillin?
`
`JUDGE MCMILLIN: No.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: All right.
`
`JUDGE MCMILLIN: Thank you.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: You do have 23 minutes left on your time, plus the
`
`15. But unfortunately, I can’t give you more time for your rebuttal than your
`main presentation.
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: That’s all right.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: So you’re at least restricted to 30 minutes.
`
`MR. AGGARWAL: Okay.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: So let’s keep it at that. Patent Owner, while
`you’re preparing to come up there, can you let us know how much time
`you’d like to reserve for rebuttal, please?
`
`MR. BOYEA: 10 minutes, please, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay. Just let us know when you’re ready to
`begin and I’ll start the clock, here.
`
`MR. BOYEA: I’m ready, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay.
`
`MR. BOYEA: And we will begin at slide 3 of Patent Owner’s
`demonstratives. Now, Google has broadly discussed what this claim is
`directed to, and I want to take a minute to look at this claim in totality.
`Because we are dealing with an obviousness analysis, and we know, in an
`obviousness analysis, we look at the invention as a whole. We’re not
`supposed to be looking at individual pieces in isolation. We need to look at
`this invention as a whole.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`
`This claim is narrow. It’s specific to a situation where the control
`
`device is seamlessly transferring its playback state to a playback device, and
`it tells you exactly how it needs to be done.
`
`The first part of this claim, it talks about a specific part of a GUI, the
`graphical user interface, that the control device has when the playback is
`happening on the control device. It then talks about discovery mechanism of
`playback devices that could receive that playback. Let me try to --
`
`JUDGE BAER: Just so you know, counsel, we’ve got your screens
`here, so --
`
`MR. BOYEA: Perfect, okay. I didn’t --
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Yes, as long as you reference the slide numbers,
`we can follow along.
`
`MR. BOYEA: Absolutely. When the claim specifically tells us how a
`user is to transfer playback from the control device, with specific inputs, to
`the playback device, once more, the claim specifically tells you the
`mechanism by which transfer of playback has to occur. And that’s critical.
`
`And Google has broken this up into four separate elements; 1I, 1F, 1G,
`and 1H. But if you look at this claim, transferring playback specifically
`means all of this. You can’t just take the bits and try to find it in disparate
`references that don’t have to do with this broader concept that’s disclosed
`here.
`And finally, it talks about what the playback device does once transfer
`
`has been provided to it, and it needs to be able to retrieve, from a second set
`of servers, the media content it’s to play.
`
`So to give you a real-world example, and this is in the specification,
`the idea is the user has on their phone, listening to Spotify, for instance.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`
`They’re outside. They come into their home, they detect a playback device
`on the network, and they can seamlessly transfer that playback from the
`phone to a local playback device, because it’ll sound better than your phone.
`And it gives the specific mechanism by which that happens.
`
`This claim is intentionally drafted to get around a paradigm like Al-
`Shaykh. Al-Shaykh is all about a local device on a home network that is the
`boss; that tells these unsophisticated rendering devices what do I do, where
`do I play from. And that’s what this claim is specifically crafted to get
`around. Because that’s not what this claim is directed to, a paradigm like Al-
`Shaykh.
`
`And I’ll just point out, and I think Google broad brushes this, but this
`claim also refers to two specific different types of cloud servers. This isn’t
`just you use the cloud and there’s transfer. We’re talking about two specific;
`a first, one of our cloud servers that do a specific function, and then a second.
` And I think that gets lost when we just start looking at limitations in
`isolation, not looking at the invention as a whole.
`
`Now, Google discussed Al-Shaykh, and I want to set the record clear,
`because I think there’s some mischaracterization that’s going on. So briefly,
`I’ll talk about an overview of Al-Shaykh. It’s all about sharing media
`content on a home network; from a mobile device to a rendering device. And
`I’m on slide 8 now.
`
`Al-Shaykh makes it clear that what it’s really talking about is you’re
`transferring a file or a stream to a rendering device so that the rendering
`device can play whatever it’s receiving from the mobile. Again, the mobile
`device is the boss. It’s telling the rendering device this is what you play.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2021-01563
`Patent 9,967,615 B2
`
`And then when the mobile device stops giving it that stream, there’s nothing
`for the rendering device to play.
`
`Al-Shaykh explains that a stated advantage of this home network
`paradigm is there’s minimal delay from the time that the mobile device sends
`the media to when the external rendering device starts playing. And that is
`key, because the proposed modifications to Al-Shaykh with Qureshey
`basically eliminates this advantage that Al-Shaykh touts.
`
`JUDGE MCMILLIN: Counsel, can you hear me?
`
`MR. BOYEA: Yes.
`
`JUDGE MCMILLIN: I’d like to ask a question. Are you going to
`address Petitioner’s argument that Al-Shaykh does describe and disclose
`downloading the content from a remote application, remote content provider?
`
`MR. BOYEA: I am, Your
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
