UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________________________
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IOENGINE, LLC
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________________________
`
`Case IPR2022-01552
`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS……………………………………………………………….v
`I. 
`Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES ................................................................................. 2 
`A.  Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ............................................ 2 
`B.  Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ...................................................... 2 
`C.  Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) and Service Information (37 C.F.R. §
`42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ........................................................................................................ 3 
`III.  PAYMENT OF FEES ......................................................................................... 4 
`IV.  REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR .............................................................................. 4 
`A.  Grounds for Standing .................................................................................... 4 
`B. 
`Identification of Challenge ............................................................................ 5 
`1.  The Specific Art on Which the Challenged is Based ................................. 5 
`2.  Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenged is Based .............................. 5 
`3.  Discretionary Denial is Not Warranted ...................................................... 6 
`V.  BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 6 
`A. 
`’584 Patent ..................................................................................................... 6 
`B.  Prosecution History of the ’584 Patent ......................................................... 7 
`C.  Overview of Technology and Asserted Prior Art ......................................... 8 
`1.  Overview of Technology ............................................................................ 8 
`2.  Overview of Asserted Prior Art ................................................................. 9 
`VI.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................................. 17 
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................. 18 
`VIII.  GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ..................................................... 19 
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`A.  Ground 1: Combining Ozawa and Prabhu Renders Claims 30-35 and 64-69
`Obvious ................................................................................................................ 19 
`1.  Motivation to Combine Ozawa and Prabhu ............................................. 19 
`2.  Claim 1 ..................................................................................................... 24 
`3.  Claim 30 ................................................................................................... 53 
`4.  Claim 31 ................................................................................................... 54 
`5.  Claim 32 ................................................................................................... 55 
`6.  Claim 33 ................................................................................................... 56 
`7.  Claim 34 ................................................................................................... 57 
`8.  Claim 35 ................................................................................................... 57 
`9.  Claim 39 ................................................................................................... 58 
`10.  Claim 64 ................................................................................................ 59 
`11.  Claim 65 ................................................................................................ 59 
`12.  Claim 66 ................................................................................................ 59 
`13.  Claim 67 ................................................................................................ 59 
`14.  Claim 68 ................................................................................................ 59 
`15.  Claim 69 ................................................................................................ 59 
`16.  Claim 73 ................................................................................................ 59 
`B.  Ground 2: Combining Ozawa, Prabhu, and Spies Renders Claims 17-21,
`25-26, 29, 54-57, 59-60, 63, 85-89, and 93-94 Obvious ..................................... 60 
`1.  Motivation to Combine Ozawa, Prabhu, and Spies ................................. 60 
`2.  Claim 17 ................................................................................................... 66 
`3.  Claim 18 ................................................................................................... 68 
`4.  Claim 19 ................................................................................................... 69 
`5.  Claim 20 ................................................................................................... 70 
`6.  Claim 21 ................................................................................................... 71 
`7.  Claim 25 ................................................................................................... 72 
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`8.  Claim 26 ................................................................................................... 72 
`9.  Claim 29 ................................................................................................... 73 
`10.  Claim 54 ................................................................................................ 75 
`11.  Claim 55 ................................................................................................ 75 
`12.  Claim 56 ................................................................................................ 75 
`13.  Claim 57 ................................................................................................ 76 
`14.  Claim 59 ................................................................................................ 76 
`15.  Claim 60 ................................................................................................ 76 
`16.  Claim 63 ................................................................................................ 76 
`17.  Claim 85 ................................................................................................ 76 
`18.  Claim 86 ................................................................................................ 76 
`19.  Claim 87 ................................................................................................ 76 
`20.  Claim 88 ................................................................................................ 76 
`21.  Claim 89 ................................................................................................ 77 
`22.  Claim 93 ................................................................................................ 77 
`23.  Claim 94 ................................................................................................ 77 
`C.  Ground 3: Combining Ozawa, Prabhu, and Boebert Renders Claims 27-28,
`61-62, and 95-96 Obvious .................................................................................... 77 
`1.  Motivation to Combine Ozawa, Prabhu, and Boebert ............................. 77 
`2.  Claim 27 ................................................................................................... 83 
`3.  Claim 28 ................................................................................................... 84 
`4.  Claim 61 ................................................................................................... 84 
`5.  Claim 62 ................................................................................................... 84 
`6.  Claim 95 ................................................................................................... 84 
`7.  Claim 96 ................................................................................................... 84 
`D.  Ground 4: Combining Ozawa, Prabhu, and Swix Renders Claims 97-99
`Obvious ................................................................................................................ 84 
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`1.  Motivation to Combine Ozawa, Prabhu, and Swix .................................. 84 
`2.  Claim 97 ................................................................................................... 89 
`3.  Claim 98 ................................................................................................... 91 
`4.  Claim 99 ................................................................................................... 93 
`IX.  NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................ 94 
`X.  CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 94 
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`
`PETITIONER’S LIST OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`
`Exhibit
`
`1101
`1102
`1103
`1104
`1105
`1106
`1107
`1108
`1109
`1110
`1111
`1112
`1113
`1114
`1115
`1116
`1117
`
`1118
`
`1119
`1120
`1121
`
`1122
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`File Wrapper of U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew B. Lippman (“Lippman”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Andrew B. Lippman
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0030959 (“Ozawa”)
`U.S. Provisional No. 60/197,848 (“OzawaPro-1”)
`U.S. Provisional No. 60/197,320 (“OzawaPro-2”)
`U.S. Provisional No. 60/197,310 (“OzawaPro-3”)
`U.S. Provisional No. 60/197,308 (“OzawaPro-4”)
`U.S. Provisional No. 60/197,233 (“OzawaPro-5”)
`U.S. Provisional No. 60/197,234 (“OzawaPro-6”)
`U.S. Patent Application No. 09/473,625 (“Ozawa’625”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0104091 (“Prabhu”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,055,314 (“Spies”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,596,718 (“Boebert”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0250273 (“Swix”)
`Complaint, IOENGINE, LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-1296 (W.D.
`Tex. Dec. 14, 2021)
`Preliminary Infringement Contentions, IOENGINE, LLC v. Roku,
`Inc., No. 6:21-cv-1296 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2022)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,338 (“Wood-1”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0057893 (“Wood-2”)
`Excerpt of Warwick Ford & Michael S. Baum, Secure Electronic
`Commerce, published 1997 (“Ford”)
`IOENGINE, LLC’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief,
`IOENGINE, LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-1296 (W.D. Tex. Aug.
`18, 2022)
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of Claims 17-21,
`
`25-35, 54-57, 59-69, 85-89, and 93-99 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,972,584 (EX1101, “’584 Patent”). The Board should institute trial and cancel the
`
`Challenged Claims.
`
`The Challenged Claims purport to cover the basic idea of a “portable device”
`
`with a memory and processor such that the portable device can communicate with a
`
`network node and a “terminal.” But this architecture was well known before the
`
`’584 Patent: both in general and specifically in the set-top box (“STB”) art.1 STB
`
`prior art never considered by the Patent Office renders the Challenged Claims
`
`unpatentable. The Patent Owner’s infringement theories against Petitioner’s
`
`products in co-pending district court litigation confirm the overbreadth of the
`
`Challenged Claims and that the asserted prior art reads on the same.
`
`
`1 Except for quotations from asserted references, “set-top box” / “set top box” are
`
`abbreviated as “STB” in the Petition.
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The petitioner in this proceeding is Roku, Inc. (“Roku” or “Petitioner”) and
`
`Roku is the real party-in-interest. There are no other real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`IOENGINE, LLC (“Patent Owner”) has asserted the ’584 Patent against
`
`Petitioner in a co-pending litigation, IOENGINE, LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-
`
`1296 (W.D. Tex.) (“District Court Case”). EX1117. The Complaint in the litigation
`
`was filed on December 14, 2021 and served on December 15, 2021.
`
`Petitioner identifies U.S. Application No. 17/409,761; U.S. Application No.
`
`17/222,294 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,082,537); U.S. Application No.
`
`15/712,780 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,447,819 (“’819 Patent”)); U.S. Application
`
`No. 15/712,714 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,397,374 (“’374 Patent”)); U.S.
`
`Application No. 14/721,540 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,774,703 (“’703 Patent”));
`
`U.S. Application No. 13/960,514 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,059,969 (“’969
`
`Patent”)); U.S. Application No. 12/950,321 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,539,047
`
`(“’047 Patent”)); and U.S. Application No. 10/807,731 (issued as U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,861,006 (“’006 Patent”)) as related administrative matters.
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`Petitioner identifies the following district court proceedings involving the
`
`’703 Patent, ’969 Patent, and ’047 Patent: IOENGINE, LLC v. PayPal Holdings,
`
`Inc., No. 18-cv-452 (D. Del., filed Mar. 23, 2018); and Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE,
`
`LLC, No. 18-cv-826 (D. Del., filed June 1, 2018).
`
`Petitioner identifies the following inter partes review proceedings involving
`
`the ’819 Patent, ’703 Patent, ’969 Patent, and ’047 Patent: IPR2022-01257;
`
`IPR2022-01258; IPR2019-00416; IPR2019-00584; IPR2019-00879; IPR2019-
`
`00929;
`
`IPR2019-00884;
`
`IPR2019-00885;
`
`IPR2019-00886;
`
`IPR2019-00887;
`
`IPR2019-00906; IPR2019-00907; IPR2019-00930; and IPR2019-00931. The
`
`Board’s judgments in IPR2019-00879 and IPR2019-00929 are pending on appeal in
`
`IOENGINE, LLC v. Ingenico Inc., Case Nos. 21-1227, -1331, -1332, -1375, and -
`
`1376 (Fed. Cir.).
`
`C. Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) and Service Information (37
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`
`Petitioner designates James L. Lovsin (Reg. No. 69,550) as lead counsel for
`
`this matter, and designates James L. Korenchan (Reg. No. 70,760), Mateusz J.
`
`Kulesza (Reg. No. 74,965), and Margot M. Wilson (Reg. No. 77,094) as back-up
`
`counsel for this matter.
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`Post mailings and hand deliveries for lead and back-up counsel should be
`
`addressed to: McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert and Berghoff LLP, 300 South Wacker
`
`Drive, Chicago, IL, 60606. (Telephone: 312-913-0001; Fax: 312-913-0002).
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), Petitioner consents to e-mail service at:
`
`docketing@mbhb.com.
`
`For compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney is filed
`
`concurrently herewith.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee required by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.15(a) and any additional fees to Deposit Account 132490.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR
`A. Grounds for Standing
`
`Petitioner certifies the ’584 Patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the following grounds.
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`
`Identification of Challenge
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`The Specific Art on Which the Challenged is Based
`
`This Petition relies on the prior art identified below, none of which was
`
`previously considered by the USPTO.2 This Petition also relies on an expert
`
`declaration of Dr. Andrew B. Lippman (EX1103, referred to as “Lippman”).
`
`Name
`Ozawa
`
`Prabhu
`
`Spies
`
`Boebert
`
`Swix
`
`Exhibit
`1105
`
`Filed
`3/16/2001
`
`Published/Issued
`10/18/2001
`
`Prior Art
`§102(b)
`
`1113
`
`1114
`
`1115
`
`1116
`
`1/26/2001
`
`8/1/2002
`
`3/22/1996
`
`4/25/2000
`
`7/10/1992
`
`1/21/1997
`
`12/14/01
`
`12/9/2004
`
`§102(b)
`
`§102(b)
`
`§102(b)
`
`§102(e)
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenged is Based
`
`The Challenged Claims are rendered unpatentable based on:
`
`
`2 As the cited art predates the ’584 Patent’s earliest priority date, Petitioner takes
`
`no position as to the legitimacy of the priority claim.
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Ground Statute
`1
`§103
`
`Art Cited
`Ozawa and Prabhu
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`
`Claims Challenged
`30-35 and 64-69
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`§103
`
`Ozawa, Prabhu, and Spies
`
`§103
`
`Ozawa, Prabhu, and Boebert
`
`17-21, 25-26, 29, 54-57,
`59-60, 63, 85-89, and
`93-94
`27-28, 61-62, and 95-96
`
`§103
`
`Ozawa, Prabhu, and Swix
`
`97-99
`
`
`
`Discretionary Denial is Not Warranted
`3.
`Petitioner respectfully submits that the Board should not exercise its
`
`discretion under 35 U.S.C. §§314(a) or 325(d) to deny this Petition.
`
`V. BACKGROUND
`A.
`
`’584 Patent
`
`The ’584 Patent discloses “a portable device [referred to throughout the
`
`specification as a tunneling client access point (“TCAP”)] configured to
`
`communicate with a terminal and a network server, and execute stored program code
`
`in response to user interaction with an interactive user interface.” EX1102, p.285.
`
`Figure 1, below, illustrates a topology of a TCAP connected to a terminal (right side
`
`of figure) and back-end TCAP server(s) (left side of figure). EX1101, 3:59-60.
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`
`The topology includes remote storage 105; servers 110, 115, and 120;
`
`communication network 113a, 113b, and 113c; access terminals (“ATs”) 127; TCAP
`
`
`
`130; and user 133a. Id. 3:59-4:4, 4:17-40.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’584 Patent
`
`The ’584 Patent issued from a sixth continuation application, U.S. Application
`
`No. 16/579,169 (the “’169 Application”). The Challenged Claims were never
`
`rejected by the Examiner in an Office Action during examination. Further, many of
`
`the Challenged Claims were added or amended after the Notice of Allowance.
`
`Lippman, ¶52; EX1102, pp.26-41, 44-52.
`
`The Examiner stated that the art of record does not teach “the portable device
`
`comprising a communication interface, network interface, an interactive user
`
`interface and program code that receives commands and affect presentation on the
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`interactive user interface” and “other features such as the portable device configured
`
`to facilitate key exchange as well as securely transmitting the processed data through
`
`the communication interface.” EX1102, pp.49-50.
`
`C. Overview of Technology and Asserted Prior Art
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Technology
`
`The architecture recited in the Challenged Claims was well known before the
`
`’584 Patent, as illustrated by STB prior art listing Anthony Wood – founder and
`
`CEO of Roku – as an inventor. U.S. Patent No. 6,324,338 (EX1119, “Wood-1”);
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0057893 (EX1120, “Wood-2”);
`
`Lippman, ¶¶68-76.
`
`Furthermore, the secure network communications recited in the Challenged
`
`Claims was well known before the priority date of the ’584 Patent, as illustrated by
`
`Secure Electronic Commerce, written by Warwick Ford & Michael S. Baum
`
`(EX1121, “Ford”), which was published by Prentice Hall PTR in 1997 (ISBN 0-13-
`
`476342-4). Lippman, ¶82. Ford extensively discusses protecting the security of
`
`electronic communications over the Internet using encryption and digital certificates,
`
`demonstrating that these techniques were well known to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art (“POSA”) as of the earliest priority date of the ’584 patent. Ford also
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`describes means for implementing digital certificates and encryption, enabling a
`
`POSA to use these techniques. Lippman, ¶82.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Asserted Prior Art
`(a) Ozawa
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0030959 (EX1105, “Ozawa”)
`
`incorporates by reference six provisional applications: U.S. Provisional No.
`
`60/197,848 (EX1106, “OzawaPro-1”), U.S. Provisional No. 60/197,320 (EX1107,
`
`“OzawaPro-2”), U.S. Provisional 60/197,310 (EX1108, “OzawaPro-3”), U.S.
`
`Provisional No. 60/197,308 (EX1109, “OzawaPro-4”), U.S. Provisional No.
`
`60/197,233 (EX1110, “OzawaPro-5”), and U.S. Provisional No. 60/197,234
`
`(EX1111, “OzawaPro-6”). Ozawa, ¶[0001]. Further, Ozawa incorporates by
`
`reference U.S. Application No. 09/473,625 (EX1112, “Ozawa’625”). Lippman,
`
`¶86.
`
` OzawaPro-1, OzawaPro-2, OzawaPro-3, OzawaPro-4, OzawaPro-5,
`
`OzawaPro-6, (hereinafter, “the Ozawa provisionals”), and Ozawa’625, are each a
`
`part of the disclosure of Ozawa for purposes of this IPR. Lippman, ¶¶85-86; see,
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`e.g., NueMoDx Molecular Inc. v. Handylab, Inc., IPR2020-01133, Paper 23 at 4-6
`
`(citing Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Co., 881 F.3d 894, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).3
`
`In the STB field, Ozawa discloses “a method and apparatus for handling
`
`MPEG (Moving Pictures Expert Group) and other SI (Service Information) data
`
`formatted in ATM [(Asynchronous Transfer Mode)] packets.” Ozawa, ¶[0003];
`
`Lippman, ¶87. Ozawa provides a mechanism to get SI data to a system processor
`
`“in an efficient manner that neither overloads the system processor nor places undue
`
`performance requirements on the system processor.” Ozawa, ¶[0004]; Lippman,
`
`¶87.
`
`Ozawa’s embodiments illustrate an STB connected to a television and a
`
`service provider head end. FIG. 1 of Ozawa illustrates this architecture. Lippman,
`
`¶88.
`
`
`3 Because Ozawa predates the ’584 Patent, Petitioner need not and does not rely on
`
`the filing date of OzawaPro-1, OzawaPro-2, OzawaPro-3, OzawaPro-4, OzawaPro-
`
`5, OzawaPro-6, and Ozawa’625.
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`
`FIG. 2 of Ozawa below illustrates a block diagram of an STB that can be used
`
`with embodiments of Ozawa. Lippman, ¶90.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`
`
`
`Each of the Ozawa provisionals discloses various operations that are
`
`applicable in the above-indicated architecture. Lippman, ¶91.
`
`(b) Prabhu
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0104091 (EX1113, “Prabhu”)
`
`“provides methods and apparatuses for passing secure … video streams from a
`
`digital set-top box to a digital television in accordance [with] EIA standards 775A
`
`and 799,” where “EIA 775A is a specification for sending video and user interface
`
`information to a DTV over a[n] [IEEE] 1394 interface.” Prabhu, ¶[0007]; Lippman,
`
`¶94. “In one embodiment, the invention contains a component performing on-screen
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`display function for user interface information displayed on a DTV.” Prabhu,
`
`¶¶[0005]; Lippman, ¶94.
`
`Prabhu also discloses that a copy protection module of the STB “incorporates
`
`a 5C authentication protocol” allowing the STB to selectively stream out high
`
`definition video over the 1394 bus to the DTV, provided that the DTV is an
`
`authenticated device. Prabhu, ¶¶[0022]-[0023]; see also id. ¶¶[0043]-[0047], FIG.
`
`7; Lippman, ¶96.
`
`(c)
`
`Spies
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,055,314 (EX1114, “Spies”) discloses “systems and methods
`
`for secure purchase and delivery of video content programs over various distribution
`
`media, including distribution networks (such as telephone systems, computer
`
`networks, and interactive television networks).” Spies, 1:7-11; Lippman, ¶102.
`
`Spies provides a system and method “for the secure [purchase and] delivery
`
`of video content programs to consumers for home viewing,” such as over a cable
`
`network to an STB. Spies, 1:33-42; Lippman, ¶103. In Spies, a “video delivery
`
`system is architected on a concept of purchasing decryption capabilities for a
`
`particular video that the viewer wishes to see. These decryption capabilities are
`
`stored on an integrated circuit (IC) card ... configured with cryptographic
`
`functionality to support the secure purchase of the decryption capabilities from the
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`video merchant. The IC card can then operate in conjunction with a viewer’s set-top
`
`box (STB) ... to decrypt a video stream of the selected video content program using
`
`the purchased decryption capabilities stored on the IC card without exposing those
`
`capabilities to the viewer or video computing device.” Spies, 2:28-41; Lippman,
`
`¶105.
`
`An example of Spies’ architecture is illustrated below in FIG. 3, where the
`
`viewer computing unit can be an STB. See Spies, 3:5-11; Lippman, ¶106.
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`
`(d) Boebert
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,596,718 to Boebert (EX1115, “Boebert”) teaches client-
`
`server communications that “ensur[e] secure communication over an unsecured
`
`communications medium between a user working on an unsecured workstation or
`
`computer and a host computer. A secure user interface is created by inserting a
`
`trusted path subsystem between input/output devices to the workstation and the
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`workstation itself. … Cryptographic entities in the trusted path subsystem and the
`
`host computer apply end-to-end encryption to confidential data transferred to and
`
`from the network.” Boebert, 4:7-26; Lippman, ¶110.
`
`(e)
`
`Swix
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2004/0250273 (EX1116, “Swix”) teaches “a
`
`digital residential entertainment system” in which a thin client STB (“TC DSTB”)
`
`300 is used to “control[] the display of a Web-browser-based GUI” and access
`
`enhanced multimedia services, such as video/audio on demand, interactive TV, Web
`
`surfing, e-mail, electronic shopping and recording/storing/playback of broadcast
`
`programs. Swix, ¶¶[0002], [0057], FIG. 3; Lippman, ¶¶116-118. FIG. 3 is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`
`Swix, FIG. 3.
`
`
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`On or before 3/24/2004, a POSA in the field of the ’584 Patent would have
`
`had a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science,
`
`Computer Engineering or related discipline, and experience in programming
`
`software or firmware for computers/peripheral devices or databases/servers, and
`
`would have had a working understanding of computer hardware, operating systems,
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`encryption, data storage, user interfaces, and communication protocols. Lippman,
`
`¶60.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Claims are construed in accordance with the Phillips standard applied in
`
`district court. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Although the District Court has not yet
`
`construed claims in the District Court Case, Patent Owner has served infringement
`
`contentions showing Patent Owner’s expected interpretations of certain claim terms,
`
`including “terminal” and “facilitate a key exchange” recited in independent Claims
`
`1, 39, and 73. Lippman, ¶¶64-65. Patent Owner is expected to take the same
`
`positions on “terminal” and “facilitate a key exchange” in this proceeding, and based
`
`on these expected interpretations, the prior art discloses all limitations of the
`
`Challenged Claims.
`
`The table below summarizes Petitioner’s understanding of Patent Owner’s
`
`interpretation of certain terms recited in the Challenged Claims based on Patent
`
`Patent Owner’s Expected
`Interpretation in This Proceeding
`
` A
`
` “computing device,” which is
`broad enough to include a TV or
`monitor that displays video and/or
`outputs audio (See, e.g., EX1118,
`
`Owner’s infringement contentions:
`
`Claim Term
`
`
`“terminal”
`(Claims 1, 39, and 73)
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`
`p.160; EX1117, p.72; EX1122,
`pp.9-10).
`Broad enough to include initiating
`or participating in a key exchange
`(See, e.g., EX1118, pp.162-166;
`EX1117, p.74).
`
`“facilitate a key exchange”
`(Claims 1, 39, and 73)
`
`
`
` Petitioner submits that the other terms recited in the Challenged Claims, other
`
`than those identified in the table above, can be given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning as would have been understood by a POSA. Thus, no express constructions
`
`are needed for the Board to institute the IPR and cancel the Challenged Claims.
`
`Lippman, ¶67.
`
`VIII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`A. Ground 1: Combining Ozawa and Prabhu Renders Claims 30-35
`and 64-69 Obvious
`
`1. Motivation to Combine Ozawa and Prabhu
`
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine Ozawa and Prabhu to arrive
`
`at the alleged invention in Claims 30-35 and 64-69 and would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of successfully doing so. Lippman, ¶129.
`
`Ozawa and Prabhu are in the same field of endeavor, and were both filed by
`
`and assigned to Sony Electronics, Inc. Further, Ozawa and Prabhu each teach
`
`delivering content (e.g., video) to an STB, and, in turn, to a TV connected to the
`
`STB. In addition, Ozawa and Prabhu each teach communication between an STB
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`and a digital TV in accordance with the home audio video interoperability (HAVi)
`
`standard, which is part of an architecture set forth by an industry group (including
`
`Sony) enabling interoperability among devices on a network regardless of the
`
`manufacturer of the device, such as on a 1394 interface or Digital Visual Interface
`
`(DVI) between the STB and the TV. See Ozawa, ¶¶[0022], [0024]; Prabhu, ¶[0004];
`
`Lippman, ¶130.
`
`Ozawa’s STB 22 can include a smart card reader that serves as a conditional
`
`access module [(‘CAM’)] conventionally utilized for “authorization of services and
`
`storage of authorized cryptography keys,” such as by “provid[ing] the key for
`
`decoding incoming cryptographic data for content that the CAM determines the user
`
`is authorized to receive.” Ozawa, ¶[0031]; Lippman, ¶131.
`
`An STB performs copy protection in both Ozawa and Prabhu. See OzawaPro-
`
`5, p.34 (copy protecting digital signals over a 1394 interface), p.10 (the STB utilizes
`
`Digital Transmission Copy Protection (DTCP) for digital copy protection, which
`
`“[was] previously known as ‘5C Copy Protection’”), p.50 (the STB’s video outputs
`
`to the TV must support copy protection); Lippman, ¶132.
`
`Prabhu teaches passing secure video streams from a digital STB to a digital
`
`TV over a 1394 interface according to EIA standards 775A and 799. See Prabhu,
`
`¶¶[0005], [0007]; Lippman, ¶133. To facilitate this, Prabhu teaches copy protection
`20
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01552
`
`functionality between an STB and a digital TV during which the STB and the TV
`
`engage in a key exchange with each other and the TV is authenticated. See Prabhu,
`
`¶¶[0017], [0043]-[0047]; Lippman, ¶133.
`
`Specifically, “[i]f the video stream currently being played needs to be
`
`encrypted then the CP [(copy protection)] function is initiated, and the video stream
`
`is encrypted from the STB to the DTV.” Prabhu, ¶¶[0042]-[0043]; Lippman, ¶134.
`
`As part of this function, the DTV initiates a key exchange with the STB, and the
`
`STB then authenticates the DTV and transmits copy protection commands to the
`
`DTV. See Prabhu, ¶¶[0043]-[0047]; Lippman, ¶134. Prabhu’s STB also
`
`“incorporates a 5C authentication protocol” that allows the STB to selectively stream
`
`out the video content on the 1394 bus, only to authen