throbber
DOCKET NO.: 410797-000029
`Filed on behalf of The Walt Disney Company, Disney Streaming Services LLC,
`and Hulu LLC
`By: Larissa S. Bifano, Reg. No. 59,051
`Thomas J. Fuller, Reg. No. 74,439
`
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
`Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1447
`Email: larissa.bifano@us.dlapiper.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`The Walt Disney Company, Disney Streaming Services LLC, and Hulu LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WAG Acquisition LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2022-01227
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER
`RESPONSE
`
`IPR2022-01227
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0001
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01227
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`MATERIALS CONSIDERED ....................................................................... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .......................................................................... 3
`
`III.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 4
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`Program ................................................................................................ 6
`
`V.
`
`CARMEL RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-12 OF THE ’636
`PATENT ......................................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`Carmel Inherently Teaches Claim Limitations [1.k]/[5.k]/[9.k]:
`the Media Data Elements are Sent by the Server in Response to
`Requests ................................................................................................ 8
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 14
`
`i
`
`IPR2022-01227
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0002
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01227
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636
`
`I, Henry Houh, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`My name is Henry Houh.
`
`I have previously provided a July 13, 2022, declaration in support of
`
`Petitioner’s Petition for Inter Partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 (“the
`
`’636 Patent”) in the instant proceeding (“First Declaration”). See EX1002.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions in response to certain
`
`arguments by Patent Owner (“PO”) in its Patent Owner Response (“POR”) (Paper
`
`15) and certain opinions in the May 1, 2023, Declaration of Mr. W. Leo Hoarty
`
`(EX2006) regarding whether claims 1-12 (“Challenged Claims”) of the ’636 Patent
`
`are invalid as disclosed to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at
`
`the time of the alleged invention.
`
`4.
`
`Specifically, in this supplemental declaration, I outline why (1) the
`
`preambles do not require requesting and transmitting an “entire program” and (2)
`
`Carmel inherently teaches claim limitations [1.k]/[5.k]/[9.k] to respond to Mr.
`
`Hoarty and PO.
`
`I.
`
`MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`5.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I have relied
`
`upon my education and experience in the relevant field of the art and have
`
`1
`
`IPR2022-01227
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0003
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01227
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636
`
`considered the viewpoint of a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art as of
`
`the claimed priority date of the ’636 Patent.
`
`6.
`
`In addition to the materials I considered when forming my First
`
`Declaration, I also reviewed the POR and Mr. Hoarty’s declaration (EX2006), and
`
`considered the additional materials listed below, including Mr. Hoarty’s deposition
`
`(EX1029) and PO’s exhibits (EX2001-EX2008) filed with the POR:
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1029
`
`2001
`
`July 6, 2023, Remote Deposition of W. Leo Hoarty, IPR2022-
`01227-28
`
`WAG Acquisition v. WebPower, Inc., 781 App’x 1007 (Fed. Cir.
`2019)
`
`2002
`
`IETF RFC 1945
`
`2003
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D. Regarding Claims 1-17 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,729,594, IPR2022-01346, Exhibit 1002
`
`2004
`
`IETF RFC 2068
`
`2005
`
`April 10, 2023, Remote Deposition of Dr. Henry Houh, IPR
`2022-01227-28
`
`2006
`
`May 1, 2023, Declaration of W. Leo Hoarty
`
`2007
`
`IETF RFC 1738
`
`2008
`
`Redline comparison of claims of ’824 and ’636 patents
`
`2
`
`IPR2022-01227
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0004
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01227
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`7.
`
`As I explain in my First Declaration, it is my opinion that the
`
`Challenged Claims (claims 1-12) of the ’636 Patent are rendered obvious by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,389,473 to Carmel et al. (“Carmel”) (Ground I), and also by Carmel
`
`in combination with U.S. Patent No. 7,529,806 to Shteyn (“Shteyn”) (Ground II).
`
`Program
`
`8.
`
`Mr. Hoarty opines that the preambles of the claims require the claims
`
`are limited to the “entire program.” EX2006, ¶38. I disagree, for reasons detailed
`
`in Section § IV.A. Further, Mr. Hoarty, in his deposition, contradicts PO’s
`
`arguments, testifying that the claims are not limited to the “entire program” but
`
`rather, a system “capable of delivering a program to the extent you wish to
`
`consume it.” See EX1029 (“Hoarty Tr.”) at 31:13-22 (emphasis added).
`
`Carmel Inherency
`
`9.
`
`Mr. Hoarty further opines that the Petition fails to show that claim
`
`limitations [1.k]/[5.k]/[9.k] is disclosed inherently by Carmel. EX2006, ¶¶121-
`
`142.
`
`10.
`
`Particularly, PO and Mr. Hoarty assert that Carmel’s one citation of
`
`HTTP 1.1 indicates that Carmel would use from HTTP 1.1 “‘chunked’” and “range
`
`3
`
`IPR2022-01227
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0005
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01227
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636
`
`retrieval request” to send a plurality of elements in response to a single user
`
`request. POR 48 (providing two instances of an “example process”); EX2006
`
`¶¶88, 91-92. These are referred to as “example processes” in the POR and
`
`“example embodiments” in Mr. Hoarty’s Declaration.
`
`11.
`
` I disagree because Carmel does not teach replacing its express
`
`disclosure of using an index file to request each slice with PO’s and Mr. Hoarty’s
`
`two created processes/embodiments. Nevertheless, Patent Owner and Mr.
`
`Hoarty’s two processes/embodiments are technically inaccurate. HTTP 1.1 does
`
`not function as Mr. Hoarty describes because in Carmel “[p]referably, each
`
`segment or slice is contained in a separate, respective file” where the client
`
`requests and receives each slice file (e.g., 42, 44, 46, etc.). EX1004, 2:22-23
`
`(emphasis added). Thus, it is my opinion that PO and Mr. Hoarty’s two
`
`processes/embodiments further show that Carmel inherently teaches claim
`
`limitations [1.k]/[5.k]/[9.k], for reasons detailed in Sections § V.A.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`12.
`
`In the First Declaration, I stated that a POSITA “would have had a
`
`B.S. degree in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree)
`
`and two years of experience in networking or streaming media, or a M.S. in
`
`4
`
`IPR2022-01227
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0006
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01227
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636
`
`computer science of electrical engineering (or comparable degree). Additional
`
`education in networking or streaming media can remedy a deficiency in
`
`experience, and vice versa.” EX1002, ¶54.
`
`13. Mr. Hoarty “largely agrees” with my stated criteria for a POSITA.
`
`EX2006, ¶13. However, the PO and Mr. Hoarty contend that the POSITA should
`
`further have “some theoretical understanding . . with basic internet protocols and
`
`tools for working with dynamic content, and creating interactive web sites . . . .”
`
`POR 9; EX2006, ¶13.
`
`14.
`
`PO does not explain with evidence from the ’636 Patent why this
`
`addition is necessary, including the POSITA “working with dynamic content, and
`
`creating interactive web sites.” Id.
`
`15.
`
`I also do not believe this addition is necessary to understand the ’636
`
`Patent claims in view of, for instance, Carmel’s disclosure.
`
`16. Regardless, I am a POSITA under either definition because of my
`
`PhD degree and significant research and work experience since the early 1990s in
`
`streaming media, and networking protocols include those used in the world wide
`
`web including HTTP. EX1002, ¶¶6-20.
`
`5
`
`IPR2022-01227
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0007
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01227
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`17.
`
`In my First Declaration, I stated that I have applied the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of the claims, when read in light of the ’636 Patent and the
`
`prosecution history of the ’636 Patent, as understood by a POSITA at the time of
`
`the invention. EX1002, ¶47.
`
`18.
`
`I believe that no claim construction is necessary for this proceeding
`
`and the plain and ordinary meaning should apply.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that PO contends that certain terms should be construed.
`
`However, the constructions proposed by PO are improper, as I describe below.
`
`A.
`
`Program
`
`20.
`
`I have reviewed the POR submitted by PO, and I understand that PO
`
`argues that preambles of the claims are for “distributing an entire program over the
`
`internet, and not merely some portion of a program.” POR 11.
`
`21.
`
`I do not believe PO’s claim construction is correct for a couple of
`
`reasons.
`
`22.
`
`First, claim 1 of the ’636 Patent only recites “program” not an “entire
`
`program” and claim 1 of the ’636 Patent does not recite the word “entire.”
`
`6
`
`IPR2022-01227
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0008
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01227
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636
`
`23.
`
`Second, the claimed steps do not support PO’s argument. Claim 1
`
`recites requesting and sending “one or more of the media data elements,” not the
`
`entire program. EX1001, claim 1 (“receiving requests . . . for one or more of the
`
`media data elements” and “sending, by the server system, the one or more media
`
`data elements”); POR, 12-13, 18 (“regardless of whether what is being sent is one
`
`element or more than one element”).
`
`24. Claim 1 further recites, “all of the media data elements that are sent . .
`
`.,” but this “are sent” refers back to the previously sent “one or more media data
`
`elements” in the claim limitation, “responsive to the requests, sending, by the
`
`server system, the one or more media data elements . . . ,” not that the entire
`
`program must be sent. EX1001, claim 1
`
`25. During his deposition, Mr. Hoarty stated that the entire program
`
`means the system must be “capable of delivering a program to the extent you
`
`wish to consume it” which according to Mr. Hoarty’s definition would means that
`
`the construction of “program” depends on each user’s consumption at a point in
`
`time, e.g., consuming 5 minutes, consuming 10 minutes, consuming 30 minutes, or
`
`some other duration of a two-hour movie. Hoarty Tr., 31:13-33:7 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`7
`
`IPR2022-01227
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0009
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01227
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636
`
`V.
`
`CARMEL RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-12 OF THE ’636 PATENT
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, the challenged claims of the ’636 Patent, including
`
`claims 1-12, are invalid as obvious over Carmel and separately Carmel and Shteyn
`
`to a POSITA as of the Critical Date. EX1002, ¶¶ 48-192.
`
`27. Carmel expressly teaches claim limitations [1.k]/[5.k]/[9.k] (EX1002,
`
`¶¶94-96, 98-99, 127-131), and below I respond to certain of Mr. Hoarty’s opinions
`
`and PO’s arguments to explain why Carmel also inherently teaches these claim
`
`limitations.
`
`A.
`
`Carmel Inherently Teaches Claim Limitations [1.k]/[5.k]/[9.k]: the
`Media Data Elements are Sent by the Server in Response to
`Requests
`
`28.
`
`It is my opinion that Carmel inherently teaches sending the media data
`
`elements in response to requests.
`
`29. As I stated in my First Declaration, “Carmel’s data stream is divided
`
`into various media data elements … it is inherent that when using the HTTP
`
`protocol to download each of the slice files, every slice file is requested
`
`individually using an HTTP GET request and the server sends each requested slice
`
`to the user system in response.” EX1002, ¶130.
`
`8
`
`IPR2022-01227
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0010
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01227
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636
`
`30.
`
`The operation of HTTP as described in the evidence of record is
`
`necessarily present to “download” the stream in Carmel. Pet., 45-46; EX1002,
`
`¶130.
`
`31. Mr. Hoarty agrees that the “primary HTTP method provided to fetch
`
`data is GET, and this is true for both HTTP versions 1.1 and 1.0” (EX2006, ¶81),
`
`and Mr. Hoarty also agrees with my descriptions of the operation of an HTTP
`
`GET. EX2006, ¶81; EX1002, ¶130; Hoarty Tr., 50:1-6.
`
`32.
`
`Thus, for HTTP 1.0 or PO and Mr. Hoarty’s HTTP 1.1 the “GET
`
`method means retrieve whatever information (in the form of an entity) is identified
`
`by the Request-URI.” EX2004, 43.
`
`33.
`
`In other words, the server only sends the data requested (GET) by the
`
`client and no more.
`
`34. Despite this agreed principle, Mr. Hoarty argues so-called
`
`embodiments/processes involving features identified in HTTP 1.1, such as
`
`“‘chunked’ encoding response header” and “range retrieval requests” in an attempt
`
`to demonstrate that Carmel is a server push system. POR 47-48, 51; EX2006 ¶¶88,
`
`91-92.
`
`9
`
`IPR2022-01227
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0011
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01227
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636
`
`35. But, Carmel does not teach replacing its express disclosure of using an
`
`index file to request each slice (EX1002, ¶¶94-96, 98-99, 127-130) with Mr.
`
`Hoarty’s two created processes. Regardless, PO’s examples, however, technically
`
`misdescribe HTTP.
`
`36.
`
`PO and Mr. Hoarty first assert that a server using chunked encoding
`
`“begins sending them one-by-one (with no further GET request)” (POR 48;
`
`EX2006 ¶91) but that only applies in the context of a single requested slice file
`
`where the server breaks that single slice file into smaller chunks.
`
`37.
`
`It is my opinion that this example does not apply to Carmel when the
`
`client requests several slice files (e.g., 42, 44, 46, etc.) because, as Mr. Hoarty
`
`agrees, a server only sends what is requested by the client (via a GET request), i.e.,
`
`a request for a slice file 42 to the server will return the same slice file 42, not
`
`additional slice files 44, 46, etc. EX2004, 21; EX1002, ¶130; Hoarty Tr., 66:5-
`
`67:1 (agreeing that “File B” would only be sent if requested by the server because
`
`Mr. Hoarty “would have to assume common sense that servers don’t send data
`
`they’re not specifically requested to send. Right?”) (emphasis added).
`
`10
`
`IPR2022-01227
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0012
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01227
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636
`
`38. Mr. Hoarty suggests using a server-side scripting language, such as
`
`PHP, to generate a script that can use chunked transfer encoding to implement the
`
`first “example process.” POR 51, 47-48; EX2006, ¶88.
`
`39. However, Carmel does not discuss using a script as Mr. Hoarty
`
`agrees.
`
`Q. Does Carmel teach transfer of data, using these supervising
`scripts?
`
`A. I don’t believe so.
`
`Q. Okay. Does Carmel talk about ASP?
`
`A. I don’t recall that in Carmel.
`
`Q. Okay. What about PHP?
`
`. . .
`
`I don’t recall reading it, and I don’t see a direct reference to a
`scripting language.
`
`Hoarty Tr., 65:2-15 (emphasis added).
`
`40.
`
`In my opinion, no reasonable POSITA would ignore Carmel’s express
`
`disclosure in Figures 6A-B and corresponding written description, as discussed in
`
`my First Declaration of a client using an index file to request each slice file
`
`(EX1002, ¶¶94-96, 98-99, 127-130) to instead employ a convoluted solution of
`
`script writing that Mr. Hoarty admits is not described in Carmel.
`
`11
`
`IPR2022-01227
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0013
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01227
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636
`
`41.
`
`It also is my opinion that PO’s description of the second “range
`
`retrieval request” embodiment likewise is technically inaccurate.
`
`42.
`
`First, when explaining range retrieval in the context of Carmel, Mr.
`
`Hoarty and PO use Carmel’s single indexed file embodiment (i.e., all slices in one
`
`file), which Mr. Hoarty improperly denotes as the “separate file” embodiment.
`
`EX1004, 2:24-25 (“the segments or slices may all be contained in a single indexed
`
`file”); EX2006, ¶91.
`
`43. However, the Petition and my First Declaration do not rely on the
`
`“single indexed file” (or one file) embodiment and instead rely on the preferred
`
`embodiment where “[p]referably, each segment or slice is contained in a separate,
`
`respective file.” EX1004, 2:22-23 (emphasis added); Pet., 14-49; EX1002, ¶¶62-
`
`138.
`
`44.
`
`In this preferred embodiment of Carmel, each slice is a separate file
`
`that can be requested by the client, e.g., slice file 42, slice file 44, slice file 46, etc.,
`
`using the index file.
`
`45.
`
`Second, PO contends that “leaving out the ending specifier” in the
`
`range will result in the server transmitting numerous slices based on a request for a
`
`single slice. POR 48, EX 2006 ¶92.
`
`12
`
`IPR2022-01227
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0014
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01227
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636
`
`46.
`
`This inaccurately describes the technical operation of a range retrieval
`
`because it only allows for the transfer of less than one slice file or only the entire
`
`single slice file.
`
`47. According to HTTP 1.1, a range retrieval request “may request one or
`
`more sub-ranges of the entity, instead of the entire entity . . . .” EX2004, 112.
`
`48. Applying to Carmel, this would mean that the client could request
`
`“sub-ranges of the entity,” i.e., a single slice file.
`
`49.
`
`Thus, simply “leaving out the ending specifier” (POR 48, EX 2006
`
`¶92) does not result in several slice files being transmitted by the server.
`
`50. Rather, failing to specify an ending range only means that the full
`
`remainder of the single slice file will be transmitted instead of “sub-ranges” of that
`
`single slice file.
`
`51. Accordingly, in my opinion, PO and Mr. Hoarty’s two
`
`“embodiments” or “process[es]” further show that Carmel inherently teaches claim
`
`limitations [1.k]/[5.k]/[9.k].
`
`13
`
`IPR2022-01227
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0015
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01227
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`52.
`
`In my opinion, and for the reasons provided above and in my First
`
`Declaration, claims 1-12 are obvious over Carmel and separately Carmel and
`
`Shteyn.
`
`53.
`
`I declare that all statements made in this declaration regarding my
`
`personal knowledge are true and accurate, and that all statements made on
`
`information and belief are believed to be true. Further, I understand that these
`
`statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like
`
`are punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of
`
`the United States Code.
`
`Henry Houh
`
`Executed on July 21, 2023.
`
`14
`
`IPR2022-01227
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0016
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the Supplemental
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, PhD has been served on the Patent Owner via email to
`
`Patent Owner by serving the email correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`ron.abramson@listonabramson.com
`
`michael.lewis@listonabramson.com
`
`ari.jaffess@listonabramson.com
`
`gina.kim@listonabramson.com
`
`Date: July 24, 2023
`
`By: /Larissa S. Bifano/
` Larissa S. Bifano
` Reg. No. 59,051
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01227
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0017
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket