UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Google LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01412
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,742,824 B2
`
`Google LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01413
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE SLIDES
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1118
`IPR2022-01412, IPR2022-01413
`
`

`

`Motion to Exclude
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`The Declarations and Transcripts from Experts Not Involved in
`These Proceedings are Inadmissible Hearsay
`
`• Declarations and transcripts for experts not involved in these proceedings are
`indisputably out-of-court statements in their entirety
`
`• Exhibit 2003 – Declaration of Dr. Henry Houh – The Walt Disney Co. v. WAG Acquisition,
`L.L.C., IPR2022-01228, Ex. 1002.
`
`• Exhibit 2004 – May 23, 2023 Deposition of Dr. Kevin Jeffay – Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG
`Acquisition, L.L.C., IPR2022-01430 and -01433.
`
`• Exhibit 2009 – Evidentiary Hearing testimony of Dr. Kevin Jeffay – In re Certain Fitness
`Devices, Streaming Components Thereof, and System Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`1265, Evidentiary Hearing - Volume III (ITC March 14, 2022).
`
`Exhibits and exhibit numbers are the same for IPR2022-01412 and -1413.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`

`

`The Declarations and Transcripts from Experts Not Involved in
`These Proceedings are Inadmissible Hearsay
`
`• Patent Owner and Mr. Hoarty are attempting to rely on this out-of-court
`testimony for the truth of the matter asserted:
`
`– PO 824 Sur-Reply (1412 Paper No.17) at 11.
`PO 636 Sur-Reply (1413 Paper No. 16) at 11.
`
`– PO 824 Sur-Reply (1412 Paper No.17) at 11-12.
`PO 636 Sur-Reply (1413 Paper No. 16) at 11-13.
`
`– 824 POR (1412 Paper No.11) at fn. 9.
`636 POR (1413 Paper No.10) at fn. 10.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`

`

`The PTAB Regularly Excludes This Type of Hearsay –
`Out-of-Court Testimony from Uninvolved Experts
`
`“Exhibit 1029 is the testimony of co-inventor Dr. George E. Seidel, Jr. in a related district court proceeding, and Exhibit 1032
`is Dr. Siedel’s curriculum vitae. Petitioner cites Dr. Seidel’s testimony in five places in its Petition[, including]: . . . (4) To
`support Petitioner’s contention that a POSA would have recognized that buffered solutions including a citric acid were as good,
`or better, than buffered solutions containing phosphates in maintaining the viability of fresh and frozen-thawed sperm; and (5)
`[t]o support Petitioner’s position on the ultimate issue that it would have been obvious to adapt a flow cytometry technique
`disclosed in the prior art to ‘sort bovine sperm to select a buffer to use in the extender and sheath fluids that includes a citric
`acid.’
`
`. . . Petitioner contends that Dr. Siedel’s testimony supporting these five contentions is not hearsay because it is not being
`offered for the truth of the matter asserted. According to Petitioner, it cites Dr. Seidel’s testimony ‘to show that a skilled person
`(one of the inventors, no less) holds an opinion on these issues, not to prove that they are necessarily true.’ We are not
`persuaded. Although the fact that Dr. Seidel is ‘a skilled person’ and ‘one of the inventors’ may lend credibility to his
`assertions, it does not, by itself, convey relevance to his testimony independent of the truth of the matters asserted. Petitioner
`does not identify, and we do not find, any relevance to the above assertions other than to prove what the inventor said
`was true—i.e., that citrate and citric acid are interchangeable (contention 1), that the benefits of citrate with respect to
`bull semen were known (contentions 2-4), and that the alleged innovation of the claimed method would have been
`obvious (contention 5). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that the above statements are hearsay.
`
`ABS Global, Inc. v. XY, LLC, IPR2018-01224, Paper No. 28, 16-18 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2018)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`

`

`The PTAB Regularly Excludes This Type of Hearsay –
`Out-of-Court Testimony from Uninvolved Experts
`
`“Petitioner moves to exclude Exhibit 2025, which, as stated in footnote 11 above, consists of excerpts from the August 9, 2021
`Opening Expert Report of Maureen T.F. Reitman, Sc.D., P.E. on Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,308,482 from Kirsch Research &
`Development, LLC v. DuPont de Nemours, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-00057 (E.D. Tex.). First, according to Petitioner, ‘Exhibit 2025 consists
`of statements made outside of the course of this proceeding that Patent Owner relies upon for their truth, and it is therefore hearsay.’
`More particularly, Petitioner alleges, Patent Owner offers for its truth Dr. Reitman’s statement that ‘[i]n extrusion coating, a molten
`polymer web may be applied to a moving substrate, while extrusion lamination may also involve a molten polymer to adhere two
`substrates to each other’ in support of its argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that extrusion coating
`and extrusion lamination are different processes; Dr. Reitman is not a witness in this proceeding; and Dr. Reitman’s statement is
`therefore hearsay under Rule 801[.] . . .
`
`First, Patent Owner argues, Exhibit 2025 is not hearsay because ‘Patent Owner is not offering it for the truth of the matter asserted’
`but rather ‘to demonstrate the beliefs of an expert in the relevant field.’ More specifically, Patent Owner asserts: . . . ‘Exhibit 2025
`indicates the state of mind of another expert in the relevant art with respect to that expert’s understanding of what a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand about the ‘482 patent and prior art.’
`
`Having considered the parties arguments, we grant Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. . . . We agree with Petitioner that Patent
`Owner is offering Dr. Reitman’s testimony for its truth. As Petitioner points out, Dr. Reitman’s testimony is being present in
`the POR in alleged support of Patent Owner’s argument (‘Maureen Reitman recognized that ‘extrusion coating’ and
`‘extrusion lamination’ were two different processes.’”
`
`GAF Materials LLC v. Kirsch Res. and Development, LLC, IPR2021-00192, Paper 45, 62-65 (P.T.A.B. May 24, 2022)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`

`

`Alleged Corroboration Does Not Help Patent Owner
`
`•
`
`If used solely as “corroboration,” more experts “corroborate” Google’s position
`
`Experts Corroborating Google’s Position
`
`Experts Corroborating PO’s Position
`
`• Dr. Nathaniel Polish
`• Dr. Henry Houh
`• Dr. Iain Richardson
`• Dr. Kevin Jeffay (at least as to Fig. 6A)
`
`• Mr. Leo Hoarty
`• Dr. Kevin Jeffay (potentially for Fig. 6B)
`
`Petitioner 824 Reply (1412 Paper No. 14) at 16 (collecting cites).
`Petitioner 636 Reply (1413 Paper No. 13) at 16-17 (collecting cites).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`

`

`The Probative Value, if any, of Ex. 2008 is Outweighed by Confusion
`of Issues, Waste of Time, and Unfair Prejudice
`
`• Exhibit 2008 – In re Certain Fitness Devices, Streaming Components Thereof, and System
`Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1265, Initial Determination (ITC Sept. 9, 2022) (CALJ
`Clark S. Cheney)
`
`• The Initial Determination does not relate to this proceeding:
`• comparing Carmel to different claims from a different, unrelated patent;
`• analyzing evidence from different experts (who Google never had an opportunity to
`cross-examine);
`relying on different standards; and
`in the context of a full evidentiary record not even available here.
`
`•
`•
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`

`

`Multiple Courts Have Agreed that in Carmel the “client computers are able to
`select individual files corresponding to the slices for download”
`
`– Claim Construction Order, Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case
`No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2014) at 28
`(1412/1413 Ex. 1108.28).
`
`– Claim Construction Order, Emblaze Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., Case
`No. 3:12-cv-05422-JST (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2014) at 14
`(1412/1413 Ex. 1110.14).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`

`

`Claim Construction
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Exemplary Claims – Claim 1 of the ’824 Patent and ’636 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent 9,742,824
`1. A method for distributing over the Internet, from a server system to one or more user systems, a
`pre-recorded audio or video program stored in digitally encoded form on computer-readable media, the
`method comprising:
`reading, by at least one computer of the server system, the pre-recorded audio or video program from the
`computer-readable media;
`
`supplying, at the server system, media data elements representing the program, each media data element
`comprising a digitally encoded portion of the program and having a playback rate;
`serially identifying the media data elements, said serial identification indicating a time sequence of the
`media data elements;
`storing the media data elements in a data structure under the control of the server system;
`receiving requests at the server system via one or more data connections over the Internet, for one or
`more of the media data elements stored in the data structure, each received request specifying one or
`more serial identifiers of the requested one or more media data elements, each received request
`originating from a requesting user system of the one or more user systems; and
`responsive to the requests, sending, by the server system, the one or more media data elements having the
`one or more specified serial identifiers, to the requesting user systems corresponding to the requests;
`wherein
`the data connection between the server system and each requesting user system has a data rate more
`rapid than the playback rate of the one or more media data elements sent via that connection;
`each sending is at a transmission rate as fast as the data connection between the server system and
`each requesting user system allow;
`the one or more media data element sent are selected without depending on the server system
`maintaining a record of the last media data element sent to the requesting user systems;
`all of the media data elements that are sent by the server system to the one or more user systems are
`sent in response to the requests; and
`all of the media data elements that are sent by the server system to the requesting user systems are
`sent from the data structure under the control of the server system as the media data elements
`were first stored therein.
`
`U.S. Patent 9,762,636
`1. A method for distributing a live audio or video program over the Internet from a server system to a
`plurality of user systems, the method comprising:
`receiving at the server system a continuous digitally encoded stream for the audio or video program, via a
`data connection from a live source, in real time, the server system comprising at least one computer;
`upon receipt of the stream by the server system,
`supplying, at the server system, media data elements representing the program, each media data
`element comprising a digitally encoded portion of the program and having a playback rate,
`serially identifying the media data elements, said serial identification indicating a time sequence of
`the media data elements, and
`storing the media data elements in a data structure under the control of the server system;
`receiving requests at the server system via one or more data connections over the Internet, for one or
`more of the media data elements stored in the data structure, each received request specifying one or
`more serial identifiers of the requested one or more media data elements, each received request
`originating from a requesting user system of a plurality of user systems; and
`responsive to the requests, sending, by the server system, the one or more media data elements having the
`one or more specified serial identifiers, to the requesting user systems corresponding to the requests;
`wherein
`the data connection between the server system and each requesting user system has a data rate more
`rapid than the playback rate of the one or more media data elements sent via that connection;
`each sending is at a transmission rate as fast as the data connection between the server system and
`each requesting user system allow;
`the one or more media data element sent are selected without depending on the server system
`maintaining a record of the last media data element sent to the requesting user systems;
`all of the media data elements that are sent by the server system to the one or more user systems are
`sent in response to the requests; and
`all of the media data elements that are sent by the server system to the requesting user systems are
`sent from the data structure under the control of the server system as the media data elements
`were first stored therein.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`

`

`Claim Construction – Issue 1 – Nothing in the Preamble (or Claim)
`Requires an “Entire” Program
`
`1. A method for distributing over the Internet, from a server system to one or more user systems, a
`pre-recorded audio or video program stored in digitally encoded form on computer-readable media, the
`method comprising:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`

`

`Nothing in the Preamble (or Claim) Requires an “Entire” Program
`1. A method for distributing over the Internet, from a server system to one or more user systems, a pre-recorded
`audio or video program stored in digitally encoded form on computer-readable media, the method comprising:
`
`• Patent Owner is improperly attempting to rewrite the preamble through the guise of
`claim construction
`
`A method for distributing over the Internet, from a server
`system to one or more user systems, an entire pre-recorded
`audio or video program stored in digitally encoded form on
`computer-readable media, the method comprising:
`
`– 824 POR (1412 Paper No. 11) at 9 (“The plain meaning of the claims is
`that the claimed method, server, and program are for distributing an entire
`program over the internet, and not merely some portion of a program.”)
`(italics in original); see also id. at 10 (repeating argument).
`
`– 636 POR (1413 Paper No. 10) at 8-9 (same).
`
`• Patent Owner’s claim construction argument is contradicted by its own expert
`
`Q So you would agree, Mr. Hoarty, that an
`audio or video program might only refer
`to a portion of the program, correct?
`
`A I believe it could.
`
`– Hoarty 2023-08-21 Dep. at 24:6-9
`(1412/1413 Ex. 1103.24).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`

`

`Claim Construction – Issue 2 –
`The “Requests” Limitations Don’t Recite “Each and Every”
`
`receiving requests at the server system via one or more data connections over
`the Internet, for one or more of the media data elements stored in the data
`structure, each received request specifying one or more serial identifiers of
`the requested one or more media data elements, each received request
`originating from a requesting user system of the one or more user systems;
`and
`responsive to the requests, sending, by the server system, the one or more media
`receiving requests at the server system via one or more data connections over the Internet, for one or more of
`data elements having the one or more specified serial identifiers, to the
`requesting user systems corresponding to the requests; wherein
`the media data elements stored in the data structure, each received request specifying one or more serial
`the data connection between the server system and each requesting user
`identifiers of the requested one or more media data elements, each received request originating from a
`system has a data rate more rapid than the playback rate of the one or
`requesting user system of the one or more user systems;
`more media data elements sent via that connection;
`each sending is at a transmission rate as fast as the data connection between
`the server system and each requesting user system allow;
`all of the media data elements that are sent by the server system to the one or more user systems are sent in
`the one or more media data element sent are selected without depending on
`response to the requests;
`the server system maintaining a record of the last media data element
`sent to the requesting user systems;
`all of the media data elements that are sent by the server system to the one
`or more user systems are sent in response to the requests; and
`all of the media data elements that are sent by the server system to the
`requesting user systems are sent from the data structure under the
`control of the server system as the media data elements were first stored
`therein.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`

`

`Claims Do Not Require Identifying Each Media Data Element
`receiving requests at the server system via one or more data connections over the Internet, for one or more of the media data
`elements stored in the data structure, each received request specifying one or more serial identifiers of the requested one or
`more media data elements, each received request originating from a requesting user system of the one or more user systems;
`
`all of the media data elements that are sent by the server system to the one or more user systems are sent in response to the
`requests;
`• Patent Owner wants to rewrite the claims to require that requests specify “each and
`every serial identifier” rather than just “one or more serial identifiers”
`
`receiving requests at the server system via one or more data
`connections over the Internet, for one or more of the media data
`elements stored in the data structure, each received request specifying
`one or more each and every serial identifiers of the requested one or
`more media data elements, each received request originating from a
`requesting user system of the one or more user systems;
`
`– 824 POR (1412 Paper No. 11) at 12 (“The plain and
`literal meaning of limitation e is that, even if the “received
`request” is for more than one element, each such
`requested element is identified in the request by the
`respective serial identifier of that media data element.”)
`and 22 (“By reason of the claim language read as a whole,
`each and every element sent must be responsive to a
`request for that element by its serial ID.”)
`
`636 POR (1413 Paper No. 10) at 11-12 and 22 (same).
`
`• While Carmel satisfies either construction, the claims should not be rewritten
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`

`

`Claim Construction – Issue 3 –
`“Data Rate of the Data Connection” Limitation
`
`the data connection between the server system and each requesting user system has a data rate more rapid
`than the playback rate of the one or more media data elements sent via that connection;
`
`responsive to the requests, sending, by the server system, the one or more media
`data elements having the one or more specified serial identifiers, to the
`requesting user systems corresponding to the requests; wherein
`the data connection between the server system and each requesting user
`system has a data rate more rapid than the playback rate of the one or
`more media data elements sent via that connection;
`each sending is at a transmission rate as fast as the data connection between
`the server system and each requesting user system allow;
`the one or more media data element sent are selected without depending on
`the server system maintaining a record of the last media data element
`sent to the requesting user systems;
`all of the media data elements that are sent by the server system to the one
`or more user systems are sent in response to the requests; and
`all of the media data elements that are sent by the server system to the
`requesting user systems are sent from the data structure under the
`control of the server system as the media data elements were first stored
`therein.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`

`

`The “Data Rate of the Data Connection” Refers to Capability
`the data connection between the server system and each requesting user system has a data rate more rapid
`than the playback rate of the one or more media data elements sent via that connection;
`
`• Patent Owner agrees this limitation relates to the capability of the data connection
`(i.e., maximum possible data rate), not its transitory data rate
`
`Patent Owner interprets limitation f(i) to mean that the
`referenced data connection must meet the “more rapid than
`the playback rate” condition over the elements “sent via that
`connection” in response to any request (either for one or for
`more elements), and that this means that the data connection
`must be capable of a data rate that can transfer the elements
`sent over the connection in less time than required to play
`back those elements at a normal rendition.
`
`– 824 POR (1412 Paper No. 11) at 16; 636 POR (1413 Paper No. 10) at 16.
`
`See also Polish 2023-10-04 Dep. at 47:1-4 (1412/1413 Ex. 2016, 46-47) (the “point here, I think, is that
`the data rate of the connection is the -- is the greatest transmission rate of that connection, in practice.”).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Unclear and Self-Contradictory
`Argument Should be Rejected
`
`• Sometimes Patent Owner suggests
`interruptions are not permitted
`
`• Sometimes Patent Owner acknowledges
`interruptions are impossible to avoid
`
`Carmel simply does not teach a data
`connection having the capability to send data
`more rapidly than the playback rate over the
`entirety of such a stream, …
`
`– 824 POR (1412 Paper No. 11) at 42.
`636 POR (1413 Paper No. 10) at 42.
`
`The data connection as claimed is over the internet.
`Thus, the connection will predictably exhibit a
`degree of irregularity, because that is the nature of
`internet connections. See EX1001-2:34-40; EX2002
`¶¶ 26-27.
`
`Patent Owner does not construe limitation f(i) to
`require that the instantaneous transfer rate of the
`connection be faster than the playback rate at all
`times during transmission of the requested program,
`as the specification makes clear that there will be
`reception interruptions with an internet connection.
`E.g., EX1001-12:19-22; EX2002 ¶ 49.
`
`– 824 POR (1412 Paper No. 11) at 5 and 15 (italics in original).
`636 POR (1413 Paper No. 10) at 5 and 15 (same).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`

`

`Claims Do Not Require Always Sending or Transmitting Data at a
`Rate Faster than Playback Rate or Maximizing Bandwidth
`
`• Patent Owner agrees that due to Internet interruptions, the rate that data is
`sent or transmitted will not always be faster than playback rate
`
`Patent Owner does not construe limitation
`f(i) to require that the instantaneous transfer
`rate of the connection be faster than the
`playback rate at all times during transmission
`of the requested program, as the specification
`makes clear that there will be reception
`interruptions with an internet connection.
`E.g., EX1001-12:19-22; EX2002 ¶ 49.
`
`– 824 POR (1412 Paper No. 11) at 15 (italics in original).
`636 POR (1413 Paper No. 10) at 15 (same).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`– Polish Reply Decl. (Ex. 1111) at ¶¶ 44-53.
`
`

`

`Carmel Obviousness Grounds
`
`IPR2022-01412
`
`’824 Patent
`
`IPR2022-01413
`
`’636 Patent
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`3
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`Claims
`1-12
`1-12
`1-12
`
`Claims
`1-12
`1-12
`1-12
`1-12
`
`Basis for Challenge Under § 103(a)
`Carmel
`Carmel in view of Ravi
`Carmel in view of Narayan
`
`Basis for Challenge Under § 103(a)
`Carmel
`Carmel in view of Narayan
`Carmel in view of Ravi
`Carmel in view of Narayan and Ravi
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Carmel Obviousness Grounds – Issue 1 –
`Carmel Teaches Client-Controlled Download
`
`– Carmel, 10:25-28
`(Ex. 1003.17).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`

`

`Carmel – Client 30 Controls the Download of Slices
`Just as Computer 34 Controls the Upload of Slices
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`

`

`Carmel – Client 30 Controls the Download of Slices
`Just as Computer 34 Controls the Upload of Slices
`Client 30 Establishes Links in a Similar Way to Computer 34
`
`Computer 34
`
`Client 30
`
`…
`
`– Carmel, 9:10-10:24
`(Ex. 1003.17).
`
`…
`
`…
`
`– Carmel, 10:25-63
`(Ex. 1003.17).
`
`824 Petition at 40; Polish 824 Decl. (1412 Ex. 1002) at ¶¶ 81, 176.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner 824 Reply (1412 Paper No. 14) at 9-11,
`Petitioner 636 Reply (1413 Paper No. 13) at 10-11,
`Polish Reply Decl. (Ex. 1111) at ¶¶ 72, 74-78, 106-07.
`
`23
`
`

`

`Carmel – Client 30 Controls the Download of Slices
`Just as Computer 34 Controls the Upload of Slices
`Client 30 Monitors Links in a Similar Way to Computer 34
`
`Computer 34
`
`Client 30
`
`…
`
`– Carmel, 9:10-10:24
`(Ex. 1003.17).
`
`…
`
`…
`
`– Carmel, 10:25-63
`(Ex. 1003.17).
`
`824 Petition at 40; Polish 824 Decl. (1412 Ex. 1002) at ¶¶ 81, 176.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner 824 Reply (1412 Paper No. 14) at 9-11,
`Petitioner 636 Reply (1413 Paper No. 13) at 10-11,
`Polish Reply Decl. (Ex. 1111) at ¶¶ 72, 74-78, 106-07.
`
`24
`
`

`

`Carmel – Client 30 Controls the Download of Slices
`Just as Computer 34 Controls the Upload of Slices
`Client 30 Controls the Number of Links in a Similar Way to Computer 34
`
`Computer 34
`
`Client 30
`
`…
`
`– Carmel, 9:10-10:24
`(Ex. 1003.17).
`
`…
`
`…
`
`– Carmel, 10:25-63
`(Ex. 1003.17).
`
`824 Petition at 40; Polish 824 Decl. (1412 Ex. 1002) at ¶¶ 81, 176.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner 824 Reply (1412 Paper No. 14) at 9-11,
`Petitioner 636 Reply (1413 Paper No. 13) at 10-11,
`Polish Reply Decl. (Ex. 1111) at ¶¶ 72, 74-78, 106-07.
`
`25
`
`

`

`Carmel – Client 30 Controls the Download of Slices
`Just as Computer 34 Controls the Upload of Slices
`Client 30 Allocates Files to Each Link in a Similar Way to Computer 34
`
`Computer 34
`
`Client 30
`
`…
`
`– Carmel, 9:10-10:24
`(Ex. 1003.17).
`
`…
`
`…
`
`– Carmel, 10:25-63
`(Ex. 1003.17).
`
`824 Petition at 40; Polish 824 Decl. (1412 Ex. 1002) at ¶¶ 81, 176.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner 824 Reply (1412 Paper No. 14) at 9-11,
`Petitioner 636 Reply (1413 Paper No. 13) at 10-11,
`Polish Reply Decl. (Ex. 1111) at ¶¶ 72, 74-78, 106-07.
`
`26
`
`

`

`Carmel – Client 30 Controls the Download of Slices
`Just as Computer 34 Controls the Upload of Slices
`Client 30 Allocates Files to Each Link in a Similar Way to Computer 34
`
`…
`
`– Carmel, 12:59-13:35 (Ex. 1003.18-19).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`See 824 Petition (1412 Paper No. 1) at 32; Polish 824 Decl. (1412 Ex. 1002) at ¶¶ 150-51;
`see also Petitioner 824 Reply (1412 Paper No. 14) at 10-11, fn. 11; 636 Petition (1413) at
`34-35; Polish 636 Decl. (1413 Ex. 1002) at ¶¶ 154-57; Petitioner 636 Reply (1413 Paper
`No. 13) at 10-11, fn. 11 Polish Reply Decl. (1412/1413 Ex. 1111) at ¶¶ 74, 106-107.
`
`

`

`“For optimal, reliable functioning” of both Fig. 5 and Fig. 6A, the slice transmission
`time (TSL) “should desirably be close to or less than … the slice duration T1, T2, etc.”
`
`…
`
`– Carmel, 12:59-13:35 (Ex. 1003.18-19).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`See 824 Petition (1412 Paper No. 1) at 32; Polish 824 Decl. (1412 Ex. 1002) at ¶¶ 150-51;
`see also Petitioner 824 Reply (1412 Paper No. 14) at 10-11, fn. 11; 636 Petition (1413) at
`34-35; Polish 636 Decl. (1413 Ex. 1002) at ¶¶ 154-57; Petitioner 636 Reply (1413 Paper
`No. 13) at 10-11, fn. 11 Polish Reply Decl. (1412/1413 Ex. 1111) at ¶¶ 74, 106-107.
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Argument That
`Carmel Teaches Client-Side Control Isn’t New
`
`Carmel discloses that data slices are sent by the server 36 only in response
`to requests from clients 30. (E.g., Carmel, 8:1-11, 8:32-31, 10:24-54.)
`Server 36 cannot send data slices without the client’s input and selection.
`Not only is this confirmed by Figs. 6A and 6B (which show that after each
`slice is selected and downloaded, the process repeats), a POSITA would
`understand from the overall disclosure in Carmel that the clients 30 control
`which slices are requested from (and therefore sent by) the server system.
`For example, Carmel teaches that under normal operation the client 30
`“preferably monitors the rate of data coming in” and controls whether to
`establish multiple links. (Carmel, 10:55-63.) A POSITA would understand
`from the possibility of multiple links, that client 30 would need to be in
`control of which data slices are sent on each link in order to ensure that the
`same data slice is not sent over multiple links—which would cause
`wasteful and duplicative use of resources. (Polish, ¶176.)
`
`– 824 Petition (1412 Paper No. 1) at 40, and
`Polish 824 Decl. (1412 Ex. 1002) at ¶ 176.
`
`See also 636 Petition (1413 Paper No. 1) at 42-43;
`Polish 636 Decl. (1413 Ex. 1002) at ¶ 181.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`

`

`Carmel Teaches a Client-Controlled “Pull” Approach for Figure 6A
`
`…
`
`…
`
`– Carmel, 10:25-63
`(Ex. 1003.17).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`

`

`Carmel’s Use of HTTP is Consistent With “Pull”
`
`1. Carmel teaches storing slices as separate files
`
`2. Carmel teaches downloading those slices (separate files) using HTTP
`
`3. Experts agree that in order to download separate files using HTTP, the client
`makes separate requests for each file
`
`See Petitioner 824 Reply (1412 Paper No. 14) at 12-13 and fn. 6;
`Petitioner 636 Reply (1413 Paper No. 13) at 12-13 and fn. 6;
`and Polish Reply Decl. (1412/1413 Ex. 1111) at ¶¶ 63-70.
`.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`

`

`Carmel’s Use of HTTP is Consistent With “Pull”
`1. Carmel teaches storing slices as separate files
`
`• Carmel’s preferred embodiment is storing slices as separate files
`
`– Carmel, 2:22-28 (Ex. 1003.13)
`See also Polish Reply Decl.
`(1412/1413 Ex. 1111) at ¶¶ 69, 70, 81.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`

`

`Carmel’s Use of HTTP is Consistent With “Pull”
`1. Carmel teaches storing slices as separate files
`
`• Carmel’s preferred embodiment is storing slices as separate files
`
`– Carmel, 2:22-28 (Ex. 1003.13)
`See also Polish Reply Decl.
`(1412/1413 Ex. 1111) at ¶¶ 69, 70, 81.
`
`• Patent Owner’s arguments focus on the alternative embodiment
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`

`

`Carmel’s Use of HTTP is Consistent With “Pull”
`1. Carmel teaches storing slices as separate files
`
`• Carmel confirms that for Figure 6A the slices are created, stored, uploaded,
`and downloaded as separate files as shown in Figure 3A
`
`– Carmel, 10:25-28
`(Ex. 1003.17).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`– Carmel, 7:18-35
`(Ex. 1003.16).
`
`34
`
`

`

`Carmel’s Use of HTTP is Consistent With “Pull”
`2. Carmel teaches downloading slices using HTTP
`
`• Carmel teaches that the client computers use HTTP to download slices/files
`
`– Carmel, 10:36-48 (Ex. 1003.17)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`

`

`Carmel’s Use of HTTP is Consistent With “Pull”
`2. Carmel teaches downloading slices using HTTP
`
`• Patent Owner’s arguments are inconsistent with Carmel
`
`– Carmel, 10:36-48 (Ex. 1003.17); see
`also id. at 10:55-59 (discussing link
`management “as described above”) and
`10:6-14 (discussing retransmission of
`files from broken links).
`
`See also 824 Petition (1412 Paper No.
`1) at 40; Polish 824 Decl. (1412 Ex. No.
`1002) at ¶¶ 121, 176; Petitioner 824
`Reply (1412 Paper No. 14) at 10-11;
`Polish Reply Decl.
`(1412/1413 Ex.
`1111) at ¶¶ 77-78, 81
`
`636 Petition (1413 Paper No. 1) at 42-
`43; Polish 636 Decl.
`(1413 Ex. No.
`1002) at ¶¶ 125, 181; Petitioner 636
`Reply (1413 Paper No. 13) at 10-11.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`

`

`Carmel’s Use of HTTP is Consistent With “Pull”
`2. Carmel teaches downloading slices using HTTP
`
`• Patent Owner’s attorney argument is contradicted by expert evidence
`
`For example, take the scenario where “client 30” is downloading three
`78.
`Slices (1, 2, 3) over three Links (A, B, C, respectively). If Link B is non-operative,
`“client 30” must decide whether to request Slice 2 on one of the two remaining links,
`open a new link, or drop the file. (Carmel, 10:6-17, 13:30-35.) While Carmel’s
`disclosure enables “client 30” to request Slice 2 on one of the two remaining links
`(by reading the index file and selecting a slice each loop), Carmel provides no
`disclosure as to how “server 36” could perform this functionality.1 Instead, as noted
`previously, Carmel expressly teaches that one of the purposes of the invention is to
`avoid the need for a server with any special-purpose hardware or software that would
`be necessary for the server to perform the functionality. (Carmel, 2:17-21, 6:45-49,
`7:9-12.)
`
`1 If Carmel worked the way Patent Owner suggests, and “client 30” merely selected a
`starting point after which subsequent slices are sent automatically by “server 36,”
`there would be no way for “client 30” to request Slice 2 on an existing link. This is
`contrary to Carmel’s express teaching.
`
`– Polish Reply Decl. (1412/1413 Ex. 1111) at ¶¶
`77-78;
`
`See also Polish 824 Decl. (1412 Ex. No. 1002)
`at ¶ 176 (“A person of skill
`in the art would
`understand from the possibility of multiple links,
`that client 30 would need to be in