UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TRILLER, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TIKTOK PTE. LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2022-00180
`U.S. Patent No. 9,992,322
`
`DECLARATION OF RAJEEV SURATI, PH.D.
`
`TIKTOK 2005
`Triller v. TikTok
`IPR2022-00180
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK ............................................... 1
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ......................................................................... 2
` BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 2
` BASIS FOR OPINIONS ................................................................................ 6
`FIELD OF ART ............................................................................................. 7
` PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 7
` OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE ’132 AND ’322
`PATENTS ...................................................................................................... 8
` INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ’132 AND ’322 PATENT CLAIMS AT
`ISSUE ........................................................................................................... 11
`“Software Application” .............................................................................. 11
`
` THE EARLIER FILED MAY 2007 PCT APPLICATION PROVIDES
`SUPPORT FOR CLAIMS 3, 6, AND 27 OF THE ’132 PATENT AND
`CLAIMS 32, 35, AND 56 OF THE ’322 PATENT .................................... 12
`
` The May 2007 PCT Application provides support for using a multitasking
`or multithreading architecture to balance the computational demands of a DRM
`program. .............................................................................................................. 13
` The May 2007 PCT Application provides support for a music application
`that uses track meta-data that is formed as a separate meta-data layer, is external
`to a music track, and defines attributes of tracks, to make sharing and browsing
`of track information possible. ............................................................................. 25
` ALLEGED ANTICIPATION OR OBVIOUSNESS OF INDEPENDENT
`CLAIMS BASED ON ABRAMS. ............................................................... 33
` The system of Abrams does not inherently perform the claimed functions
`over a “wireless connection.” ............................................................................. 34
` The Petitions do not demonstrate a “Software Application” according to
`the definition recited by the ’132 and ’322 patents. ........................................... 46
` THE PROPOSED COMBINATION OF ABRAMS AND KHEDOURI .... 48
`
`i
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
` LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................ 57
` Claim Interpretation ................................................................................... 58
` Anticipation ................................................................................................ 59
` Obviousness ............................................................................................... 59
` CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 63
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`
`I, Rajeev Surati, Ph.D., of Cambridge, Massachusetts, declare that:
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK
`1.
`I have been retained by Patent Owner TikTok PTE. LTD. in the
`
`above-captioned Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings as an independent expert
`
`in the relevant field.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my independent analysis regarding the
`
`references identified by petitioner Triller, Inc. (“Petitioner”) in IPR proceeding
`
`IPR2022-00179 involving U.S. Patent No. 9,648,132 (“the ’132 patent”) and IPR
`
`proceeding IPR2022-00180 involving U.S. Patent No. 9,992,322 (“the ’322
`
`patent), which are assigned to Patent Owner. I note that the ’322 patent is a
`
`continuation of the ’132 patent and that the patents share a common specification
`
`and priority date. I have been asked to consider what one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art before the priority date of the ’132 and ’322 patents would have understood
`
`from the ’132 and ’322 patents, including scientific and technical knowledge
`
`related to the ’132 and ’322 patents. I have also been asked to consider whether
`
`the references relied on by Petitioner disclose or render obvious the inventions
`
`claimed by the ’132 and ’322 patents.
`
`3. My analysis is directed by my education, training, and experience as a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of the ’132 and ’322
`
`1
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`
`patents, which for purposes of my analysis here is assumed to be the filing date of
`
`the UK patents to which the ’132 and ’322 patents claim priority—May 5, 2006.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in connection with this IPR
`
`proceeding at my standard hourly rate. My compensation is not in any way
`
`contingent on the substance of my opinions or the outcome of these proceedings.
`
`
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`5.
`Based on my experience and expertise, discussed below, and my
`
`review of the references identified by Petitioner in these IPRs for the ’132 and ’322
`
`patents, it is my opinion that the cited references do not render obvious the
`
`challenged claims of the ’132 and ’322 patents.
`
` BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`6.
`I have more than thirty (30) years of experience in electrical
`
`engineering, computer science, and electronic messaging. The following
`
`paragraphs summarize some of my experience that is relevant to the technologies
`
`described within the ’132 and ’322 patents. For further details, please refer to my
`
`curriculum vitae which is attached as Appendix A.
`
`7.
`
`I attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) from
`
`1988 to 1999, during which time I earned Bachelor of Science (1992), Master of
`
`Science (1995), and Doctor of Philosophy (1999) degrees in electrical engineering
`
`and computer science.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`8.
`
`I am the inventor of U.S. Patent No. 5,943,478, entitled “System for
`
`Popup Messaging over the Internet,” which describes a two-way messaging system
`
`like AOL Instant Messenger and MIT’s Zephyr service built at Internet scale.
`
`9.
`
`In 1996, I founded a company called Flash Communications, which
`
`focused on technology related to U.S. Patent No. 5,943,478 and associated
`
`technology that I had developed related to pop-up two-way messaging over the
`
`Internet. Flash Communications was sold to Microsoft Corporation in 1998, and
`
`Flash Communications’ messaging technology was incorporated into Microsoft’s
`
`Messenger service and Microsoft Exchange 2000 Instant Messaging Service.
`
`10. Notably, since around 1995, I have been using and working with AOL
`
`Instant Messenger (which was part of AOL’s subscription service in 1995 and
`
`1996, and in 1997 was released on the internet) until its demise both as a basis for
`
`competitive analysis and normal everyday usage.
`
`11. While working at Microsoft between 1999 and 2000, I worked in the
`
`Microsoft Exchange Server group. The group was responsible for all of
`
`Microsoft’s Messaging products including e-mail, instant messaging, and what
`
`later became their unified messaging offering that included telephony etc. I worked
`
`on many systems, including those that involved multicasting, a form of
`
`broadcasting.
`
`12. While at Microsoft I was an inventor of US Patent No. 6,260,148:
`
`3
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`
`Methods and systems for message forwarding and property notifications using
`
`electronic subscriptions; US Patent No. 6,415,318: Inter-enterprise messaging
`
`system using bridgehead servers; and US Patent No. 6,604,133: Inter-enterprise
`
`messaging system using bridgehead servers. Each of these patents is related to
`
`messaging, property subscription and notification, architectures for distributing
`
`broadcast messages, etc.
`
`13. While at Microsoft I worked on an XML parsing engine for the
`
`standard for IMPP, which is now known by the name XMPP, an XML language
`
`for Instant Messaging and Presence.
`
`14. Between 2000 and 2004, I worked as a consultant and investor at
`
`Nexaweb Corporation, where I helped implement several two-way messaging
`
`systems and an application framework for web application development.
`
`15. Also in 2000, I started a company known as photo.net, which was a
`
`large online photography community known as one of the first social networking
`
`and photo sharing web sites. Messaging and broadcasting content were a core part
`
`of the offering of the site and I managed the implementation and hosting aspect of
`
`setting up and running the various SMTP, MTA, WAP, and SMS servers to enable
`
`communication with our user base. I built an application infrastructure to a scale
`
`that allowed me to be experienced with the issues in broadcasting messages to
`
`millions of users. Photo.net also had a multimedia component to it that included
`
`4
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`
`photos. We also had a WAP implementation of the site.
`
`16.
`
`In 2004, I founded another company, Scalable Display Technologies
`
`(SDT). I have been the Chairman of SDT since its founding and President until
`
`2014. SDT operates in the audio-video domain and has licensed software and
`
`firmware to various companies including Sony, Hitachi and NEC. I also
`
`implemented a distributed multimedia content playback system and spent a great
`
`deal of time dealing with multimedia transcoding and rendering systems. At SDT I
`
`was also involved building a network architecture where I had to consider and
`
`design a system that met our needs for discovery and direct communication using
`
`both broadcast and point to point communication mechanisms.
`
`17.
`
`I am on the advisory boards of several technology companies
`
`including: UnifySquare, which is a unified communications/real-time collaboration
`
`consultancy that focuses on telephony and instant messaging systems that
`
`Microsoft sells (Lync, an outgrowth of the company I sold to Microsoft);
`
`Nexaweb, which develops real-time web application frameworks using HTTPS;
`
`Permabit, which develops content addressable storage; and Evoque, which is an
`
`ecommerce enabling platform publisher.
`
`18. Over the last 30 years I have developed many multithreaded apps both
`
`extremely scalable ones that ran on servers servicing 10s of thousands of
`
`connection per IP address and more mundane single user apps that handle the UI in
`
`5
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`
`a thread separate from the drawing and other activities. I did this over my careers
`
`at flash communications, Microsoft, and Scalable Display Technologies and today
`
`on the projects I work on as a consultant.
`
`19.
`
`I have received several awards for my contributions as an inventor
`
`and entrepreneur, including the Global Indus Technovator Award 2009 and
`
`Laureate of 2009 Computer World Honors Program.
`
`20. Based on my experience and education, I believe that I am qualified to
`
`opine as to knowledge and level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention of the ’132 and ’322 patents (which I further describe below)
`
`and what such a person would have understood at that time, and the state of the art
`
`during that time.
`
` BASIS FOR OPINIONS
`21. My opinions and analysis set forth in this Declaration are based on my
`
`education, training, and experience as summarized above and detailed in my C.V.,
`
`as well as my review of the ’132 and ’322 patents, the May 2007 PCT application
`
`to which they claim priority (EX1008), and the references identified by Petitioner
`
`in these IPR proceedings. I have also carefully reviewed the declaration from Dr.
`
`Michael Shamos (EX1025), which Petitioner submitted in support of its Petitions
`
`in these IPR proceedings. I have also reviewed the Petitions and each of the
`
`accompanying documents that are cited in the Petitions, including those
`
`6
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`
`specifically mentioned in in Grounds 1-6 of the Petition challenging the ’132
`
`patent and Grounds 1-6b of the Petition challenging the ’322 patent.
`
`
`
`
`FIELD OF ART
`22. The ’132 and ’322 patents generally relate to computer hardware,
`
`networking, and user experience design with electronic messaging and electronic
`
`media distribution. As such, it is my opinion that the ’132 and ’322 patents are in
`
`the fields of computer hardware, networking, and/or user experience design, or an
`
`equivalent subject matter, and a complete understanding of the ’132 and ’322
`
`patents requires experience and appreciation of the challenges in design,
`
`development, and commercialization of such systems for consumer use.
`
` PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`23.
`I understand that the teaching of the prior art is viewed through the
`
`eyes of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. To assess
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art, I understand that one can consider the types of
`
`problems encountered in the art, the prior solutions to those problems found in
`
`prior art references, the speed with which innovations were made at that time, the
`
`sophistication of the technology, and the level of education of active workers in the
`
`field.
`
`24.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’132
`
`and ’322 patents at the time of their priority date would have had a bachelor of
`
`7
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`
`science degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Human Factors, or a
`
`similar subject matter, and at least approximately two years of work or research
`
`experience in the fields of user interfaces, communications applications,
`
`networking applications, or media application, or an equivalent subject matter,
`
`sufficient to understand fundamental computer networking and hardware
`
`architecture and user-interface design. Additional education could make up for
`
`lack of work or research experience or vice versa. My analysis is thus based on the
`
`perspective of a POSITA having at least this level of knowledge and skill in the
`
`time leading up to priority date of the ’132 and ’322 patents. I have been informed
`
`that the earliest claimed priority date of the ’132 and ’322 patents is the filing date
`
`of the UK applications GB0608932 and GB0608933—May 5, 2006, and I have
`
`applied this timeframe in my analysis as being the relevant time of the ’132 and
`
`’322 patents.
`
` OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE ’132 AND ’322
`PATENTS
`25. As I mentioned above, the ’322 patent is a continuation of the ’132
`
`patent and the patents share a common specification and priority date. Due to this
`
`shared specification, the similarity between the recitations of the challenged
`
`claims, and the similarity in how Triller and Dr. Shamos have assessed the asserted
`
`prior art references with respect to claims of the ’132 and ’322 patents, I will
`
`8
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`
`address the discussion of the relevant technology for these two patents together
`
`(with specific citation to the ’132 patent (EX1001)).
`
`26. The ’132 and ’322 patents generally relate to software applications
`
`that blends music identification and acquisition functionality with specialized
`
`social networking functionality to provide a unique user experience. Specifically,
`
`the patents describe a software application referred to as “MusicStation” that
`
`“enable[s] users to easily acquire, listen to and manage music on portable wireless
`
`computing devices.” EX1001, 2:51-58. The wireless communication and
`
`portability of the devices executing this MusicStation application are a key aspect
`
`of the system described by the ’132 and ’322 patents. The specification describes
`
`that MusicStation allows users to “discover and acquire new music anywhere”
`
`without having to be tethered to a desktop computer or other computing device
`
`with a wired network connection to receive music files and other updates. EX1001,
`
`3:47-67.
`
`27.
`
`In addition to this important wireless functionality, MusicStation also
`
`facilitates “user community features such as making friends and sharing playlists”
`
`which “enabl[es] improved consumer music discovery.” EX1001, 3:64-67, 4:44-
`
`57. These features drive user engagement with the system. For example, “[e]ach
`
`user has the ability to create an individual profile, send ‘friend’ requests to other
`
`users and thereafter send their playlists or recommendations by artist, album or
`
`9
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`
`individual tracks to confirmed ‘friends.’” Id., 32:26-33. As the specification
`
`describes “[r]ecommendations, properly implemented, encourage exploration and
`
`discovery that in turn lead to more purchases of new music. Additionally they
`
`allow us to optimise the MusicStation experience in the restricted mobile
`
`environment.” EX1001, 19:24-34.
`
`28. Another important aspect of the MusicStation software described by
`
`the ’132 and ’322 patents is its multi-threading/multi-tasking architecture, which is
`
`described at the beginning of the detailed description. EX1001, 11:12-14:54,
`
`16:10-19:22. The specification describes a number of threads for performing the
`
`tasks described throughout the specification to balance the computational demands
`
`of the various functions of the MusicStation application including user interface
`
`functions, animation, network connections/communication, and task scheduling.
`
`EX1001, 11:12-46. The specification describes that “[t]he Scheduler is a facility
`
`for threads to schedule tasks for immediate or future execution in a background
`
`thread. Tasks may be scheduled for one-time execution, or for repeated execution
`
`at regular intervals.” Id., 11:47-12:3. Tasks can be assigned various priorities
`
`(“CLDC Thread priorities”) by the scheduler thread. Id., 12:4-59.
`
`29. One of the various tasks performed using this multi-threading/multi-
`
`tasking architecture is “a digital rights management system that enables unlimited
`
`legal downloads of different music tracks to the device and also enables any of
`
`10
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`
`those tracks stored on the device to be played so long as a subscription service has
`
`not terminated.” EX1001, 7:46-50. The specification further describes that “[t]he
`
`DRM also enables the purchase of a music track such that the track can still be
`
`played if the subscription service is terminated.” Id., 5:27-30.
`
` INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ’132 AND ’322 PATENT CLAIMS
`AT ISSUE
`30.
`I have been asked to provide my interpretation of the following terms
`
`of the ’132 and ’322 patents set forth below. In providing the following
`
`interpretations, I have carefully considered and applied the claim construction
`
`standard referred to in Section VII.A below. Infra, ¶89 ((“interpreted according to
`
`their ‘ordinary and customary meaning’ under the Phillips standard”). In
`
`particular, I have reviewed the definitions section that appears in the common
`
`specification of the ’132 and ’322 patents which sets out definitions for a number
`
`of terms used throughout the specification and within the claims of the ’132 and
`
`’322 patents. EX1001, 8:4-9:13. Here I address the definition for the term
`
`“Software Application” (which appears in the independent claims of both the ’132
`
`patent and ’322 patent) provided in the definitions section of the joint specification.
`
`
`“Software Application”
` The common specification of the ’132 and ’322 patents provides an
`
`31.
`
`express definition for the term “Software Application.” Specifically, the common
`
`specification defines “Software Application” as “The Client software application
`
`11
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`
`which is to be delivered over-the-air to, or pre-installed on, the Wireless
`
`Computing Device.” EX1001, 8:61-63. I note that this definition is part of the
`
`“Definitions” section of the ’132 and ’322 patents. Based on my review of the
`
`’322 patent, and my knowledge and experience in this field, a POSITA would have
`
`readily recognized that the ’322 patent’s definition imparts a specific meaning to
`
`“Software Application,” as I discuss in more detail below.
`
` THE EARLIER FILED MAY 2007 PCT APPLICATION PROVIDES
`SUPPORT FOR CLAIMS 3, 6, AND 27 OF THE ’132 PATENT AND
`CLAIMS 32, 35, AND 56 OF THE ’322 PATENT
`32.
`I understand that Petitioner and Dr. Shamos have asserted that claims
`
`3, 6, and 27 of the ’132 patent and claims 32, 35, and 56 of the ’322 patent are not
`
`supported by the disclosure of the disclosures of PCT Application No.
`
`GB2007/001675 filed on May 8, 2007 (“May 2007 PCT application”).1 EX1025,
`
`¶¶81-83. Dr. Shamos’s analysis of the recitations of claims 3, 6, and 27 of the ’132
`
`patent and claims 32, 35, and 56 of the ’322 patent with respect to the disclosures
`
`of the May 2007 PCT application ignores numerous disclosures of the May 2007
`
`
`1 PCT Application No. GB2007/001675 published as PCT publication
`
`WO2007/129081, which was submitted by the Petitioner as Exhibit EX1008 in
`
`these IPR proceedings. I will therefore cite to EX1008 when discussing the May
`
`2007 PCT application.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`
`PCT application that demonstrate to a POSITA that those claims are fully
`
`supported by the earlier disclosures of the May 2007 PCT application. I
`
`respectfully disagree with Dr. Shamos’s conclusions regarding claims 3, 6, and 27
`
`of the ’132 patent and claims 32, 35, and 56 of the ’322 patent for the reasons
`
`addressed below.
`
` The May 2007 PCT Application provides support for using a
`multitasking or multithreading architecture to balance the
`computational demands of a DRM program.
`33. Claim 3 of the ’132 patent recites:
`
`… wherein the software application uses the multitasking
`architecture to balance the computational demands of one
`or both of: a DRM program; media operations.
`
`Claim 32 of the ’322 patent includes a highly similar recitation. Similar to these
`
`claims, claim 27 of the ’132 patent recites
`
`…wherein the software application uses a multithreaded
`architecture to balance the computational demands of
`network access; and the computational demands of one
`or more of: a user interface of the software application; a
`DRM program; media operations.
`
`Claim 56 of the ’322 patent includes a highly similar recitation. A review of the
`
`relevant disclosures of the May 2007 PCT application reveals to a POSITA that the
`
`claimed functionality of claims 3 and 27 of the ’132 patent and claims 32 and 56 of
`
`13
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`
`the ’322 patent are fully supported by the May 2007 PCT application. A POSITA
`
`would have understood that the inventors of the ’132 and ’322 patents had
`
`possession of these claimed features at least as early as the filing of the May 2007
`
`PCT application.
`
`34. As I discussed in paragraphs 28-29, above, one of the key aspects of
`
`the MusicStation software described in the common specification of the ’132 and
`
`’322 patents is the multi-threading architecture that balances the computational
`
`demands of the various processes performed by the MusicStation software through
`
`scheduling, prioritizing, and execution of various tasks. EX1001, 11:12-14:54,
`
`16:10-19:22. These same disclosures appear in the May 2007 PCT application and
`
`provide support for claims 3 and 27 of the ’132 patent and claims 32 and 56 of the
`
`’322 patent.
`
`35. As with the common specification of the ’132 and ’322 patents, the
`
`detailed description of the May 2007 PCT application begins with a discussion of
`
`multi-threading architecture of the MusicStation software. EX1008, 18:1-24:10.
`
`The May 2007 PCT application refers to the ability of the dedicated music player
`
`to perform “multiple threads simultaneously” as “[a] key aspect of the player.”
`
`EX1008, 18:1-8. The May 2007 PCT application then goes on to describe details
`
`about the multi-threading architecture that a POSITA would have recognized as
`
`applying to the execution of all of the processes performed by the MusicStation
`
`14
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`
`software as described throughout the May 2007 PCT application to balance the
`
`computational demands of such processes.
`
`36. The May 2007 PCT application starts out the discussion of the multi-
`
`threading architecture of MusicStation by describing the “3 main threads” utilized
`
`by the software, which the May 2007 PCT application identifies as a “User
`
`Interface (UI) thread,” an “Animation thread,” and a “Scheduler thread.” EX1008,
`
`18:7-13. The Scheduler thread is also referred to as a “Task Thread.” Id., 27:10-
`
`15. The May 2007 PCT application includes descriptions of several other threads
`
`including “an HTTP connection thread” and a thread “to schedule all file
`
`connections, either from the local file system or remotely over an HTTP
`
`connection.” Id., 18:14-15, 21:11-12. The May 2007 PCT application also
`
`describes the functionality of a background thread that downloads and updates files
`
`“in the background whilst the customer is using the application.” Id., 27:5-8. A
`
`POSITA would have recognized that these various disclosures of multiple types of
`
`threads for performing multiple different functions in which the system “performs
`
`multiple threads simultaneously” in the May 2007 PCT application provides
`
`support for a multi-threading architecture for executing such threads/tasks in
`
`parallel. A POSITA would have further recognized that multi-threading is a type
`
`of multi-tasking and therefore the May 2007 PCT application provides disclosures
`
`for using a multi-tasking architecture to balance the computational demands of the
`
`15
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`
`various processes described therein. I address this discussion of using multiple
`
`threads to schedule and execute various tasks (e.g., multi-tasking) below.
`
`37. Specifically, the May 2007 PCT application provides details on how
`
`the Scheduler thread (one of the “3 main threads” described in the May 2007 PCT
`
`application) operates to schedule and execute multiple tasks for the various
`
`different processes performed by the MusicStation software. For example, the
`
`May 2007 PCT application describes that “[t]he Scheduler is a facility for threads
`
`to schedule tasks for immediate or future execution in a background thread. Tasks
`
`may be scheduled for one-time execution, or for repeated execution at regular
`
`intervals.” EX1008, 19:5-24.
`
`The Scheduler object has a single background thread that
`is used to execute all of the scheduler's tasks sequentially.
`If a scheduler task takes excessive time to complete, it
`"hogs" the timer's task execution thread. This can, in
`turn, delay the execution of subsequent tasks, which may
`"bunch up". Any task that may take longer than a few
`seconds to execute must implement interruptQ.
`
`EX1008, 19:9-13.
`
`38. The May 2007 PCT application specifies that the Scheduler class “is
`
`thread safe” describing that “multiple threads can share a single Scheduler object
`
`16
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`
`without the need for external synchronization.” EX1008, 19:22-24. Figure 1
`
`shows the Scheduler class diagram:
`
`EX1008, FIG. 1.
`
`39. Figure 2 shows the scheduler thread adding tasks to the task queue
`
`and executing tasks:
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`
`EX1008, 19:5-24, FIG. 2.
`
`40. Figure 3 shows that various different threads perform tasks from the
`
`task queue based, in part, on priority of the tasks:
`
`
`
`EX1008, 19:15-27, FIG. 3. As demonstrated by Figures 1-3 and the relevant
`
`descriptions, a POSITA would have understood that the MusicStation software
`
`described in the May 2007 PCT application utilizes the multi-threading
`
`architecture to employ multiple threads to execute multiple tasks of the various
`
`processes of the MusicStation software concurrently. For example, the May 2007
`
`PCT application describes that in context of the MusicStation software, “[a] large
`
`18
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`
`number (thousands) of scheduled tasks should present no problem” thanks to
`
`implementation of the disclosed multi-threading/multi-tasking architecture. Id.,
`
`20:18-21.
`
`41. The May 2007 PCT application further describes that the disclosed
`
`multi-threading / multi-tasking architecture is used to balance the computational
`
`demands of various processes, including digital rights management (DRM), media
`
`operations, network access, and a user interface of the MusicStation software
`
`application. Regarding the descriptions of balancing the computational load of
`
`DRM and media operation tasks, the May 2007 PCT application describes that “the
`
`application includ[es] a digital rights management system that enables unlimited
`
`legal downloads of different music tracks to the device and also enables any of
`
`those tracks stored on the device to be played so long as a subscription service has
`
`not terminated.” EX1008, 4:14-16. The specification further describes that “[t]he
`
`DRM also enables the purchase of a music track such that the track can still be
`
`played if the subscription service is terminated.” Id., 8:3-4. The software
`
`application performs this DRM functionality based on “the Open Mobile Alliance
`
`(OMA) DRM v2 specification.” Id., 104:10-31.
`
`42. The May 2007 PCT application goes on to describe that each file or
`
`other content object that is DRM protected (such as individual music tracks) has an
`
`associated Rights Object. Id., 105:10-28. The May 2007 PCT application
`
`19
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`
`describes the DRM program as a “DRM Agent” which “embodies a trusted
`
`component of the application, responsible for enforcing permissions and
`
`constraints for DRM Content on the device, controlling access to DRM Content on
`
`the device, and so on.” Id. For each music file or other DRM protected file/object,
`
`the DRM Agent accesses the corresponding Rights Object to ensure that the user
`
`has the proper permissions to play/access the music file. Id. The Rights Object
`
`includes “Content Encryption Key (CEK) needed to unlock DRM Content.”
`
`EX1008, 105:30-106:10, 118:4-6. The May 2007 PCT application further
`
`describes that the DRM Agent performs tasks “to verify the integrity of a [DRM
`
`Content Format], protecting against modification of the content by some
`
`unauthorised entity.” Id.
`
`43. Based on these various disclosures of various DRM related tasks
`
`performed by the DRM Agent in combination with the detailed disclosures
`
`regarding scheduling and execution of tasks by the MusicStation software
`
`application using a multithreading / multitasking architecture, a POSITA would
`
`have recognized that these various DRM related tasks described by the May 2007
`
`PCT application are performed using the multi-threading / multi-tasking
`
`architecture that makes up a “key aspect” of the MusicStation software. EX1008,
`
`18:5-25. Therefore the May 2007 PCT application provides that the multi-
`
`20
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2022-00179, IPR2022-00180
`Attorney Docket Nos: 50048-0015IP1, 50048-0016IP1
`
`
`threading / multi-tasking architecture balances the computational demands of a
`
`DRM program.
`
`