UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________________________
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IOENGINE, LLC
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________________________
`
`Case IPR2022-01553
`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`LIST OF EXHIBITS……………………………………………………………….v
`I. 
`Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES ................................................................................. 1 
`A.  Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ............................................ 1 
`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 ................................................................................................. 7 
`A. 
`’584 Patent ..................................................................................................... 7 
`B.  Prosecution History of the ’584 Patent ......................................................... 8 
`C.  Overview of Technology and Asserted Prior Art ......................................... 9 
`1.  Overview of Technology ............................................................................ 9 
`2.  Overview of Asserted Prior Art ............................................................... 10 
`VI.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................................. 15 
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................. 16 
`VIII.  GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ..................................................... 17 
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`
`A.  Ground 1: Combining Alger and Lyle Renders Claims 1-12, 14-16, 22-24,
`36-50, 52-53, 58, 70-83, and 90-92 Obvious ....................................................... 17 
`1.  Motivation to Combine Alger and Lyle ................................................... 17 
`2.  Claim 1 ..................................................................................................... 26 
`3.  Claim 2 ..................................................................................................... 72 
`4.  Claim 3 ..................................................................................................... 73 
`5.  Claim 4 ..................................................................................................... 74 
`6.  Claim 5 ..................................................................................................... 74 
`7.  Claim 6 ..................................................................................................... 75 
`8.  Claim 7 ..................................................................................................... 76 
`9.  Claim 8 ..................................................................................................... 77 
`10.  Claim 9 .................................................................................................. 78 
`11.  Claim 10 ................................................................................................ 80 
`12.  Claim 11 ................................................................................................ 81 
`13.  Claim 12 ................................................................................................ 81 
`14.  Claim 14 ................................................................................................ 82 
`15.  Claim 15 ................................................................................................ 83 
`16.  Claim 16 ................................................................................................ 84 
`17.  Claim 22 ................................................................................................ 84 
`18.  Claim 23 ................................................................................................ 85 
`19.  Claim 24 ................................................................................................ 86 
`20.  Claim 36 ................................................................................................ 86 
`21.  Claim 37 ................................................................................................ 88 
`22.  Claim 38 ................................................................................................ 89 
`23.  Claim 39 ................................................................................................ 91 
`24.  Claim 40 ................................................................................................ 92 
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`25.  Claim 41 ................................................................................................ 92 
`26.  Claim 42 ................................................................................................ 92 
`27.  Claim 43 ................................................................................................ 92 
`28.  Claim 44 ................................................................................................ 92 
`29.  Claim 45 ................................................................................................ 92 
`30.  Claim 46 ................................................................................................ 92 
`31.  Claim 47 ................................................................................................ 93 
`32.  Claim 48 ................................................................................................ 93 
`33.  Claim 49 ................................................................................................ 93 
`34.  Claim 50 ................................................................................................ 93 
`35.  Claim 52 ................................................................................................ 93 
`36.  Claim 53 ................................................................................................ 93 
`37.  Claim 58 ................................................................................................ 93 
`38.  Claim 70 ................................................................................................ 93 
`39.  Claim 71 ................................................................................................ 93 
`40.  Claim 72 ................................................................................................ 94 
`41.  Claim 73 ................................................................................................ 94 
`42.  Claim 74 ................................................................................................ 94 
`43.  Claim 75 ................................................................................................ 95 
`44.  Claim 76 ................................................................................................ 95 
`45.  Claim 77 ................................................................................................ 95 
`46.  Claim 78 ................................................................................................ 95 
`47.  Claim 79 ................................................................................................ 95 
`48.  Claim 80 ................................................................................................ 95 
`49.  Claim 81 ................................................................................................ 95 
`50.  Claim 82 ................................................................................................ 95 
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`51.  Claim 83 ................................................................................................ 95 
`52.  Claim 90 ................................................................................................ 96 
`53.  Claim 91 ................................................................................................ 96 
`54.  Claim 92 ................................................................................................ 96 
`B.  Ground 2: Combining Alger, Lyle, and Connelly Renders Claims 13, 51,
`and 84 Obvious .................................................................................................... 96 
`1.  Motivation to Combine Alger, Lyle, and Connelly ................................. 96 
`2.  Claim 13 ................................................................................................... 98 
`3.  Claim 51 ................................................................................................... 98 
`4.  Claim 84 ................................................................................................... 98 
`IX.  NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................ 99 
`X.  CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 99 
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`
`PETITIONER’S LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1201
`1202
`1203
`1204
`1205
`1206
`1207
`
`1208
`
`1209
`
`1210
`
`1211
`
`1212
`
`1213
`
`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. 2003/0018543 (“Alger”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,242,766 (“Lyle”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0144265
`(“Connelly”)
`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)
`Frank McPherson, “How to Do Everything with Your PocketPC and
`HandheldPC,” published May 22, 2000 (“PocketPC Guide”)
`Excerpt of Warwick Ford & Michael S. Baum, Secure Electronic
`Commerce, published 1997 (“Ford”)
`High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection System Revision 1.0,
`published February 17, 2000 (“HDCP 1.0”)
`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 – IPR2022-01553
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of Claims 1-16,
`
`I.
`
`
`
`22-24, 36-53, 58, 70-84, and 90-92 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,972,584 (EX1201, “’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 and a “terminal.” But this architecture was well known before the ’584
`
`Patent: both in general and specifically in the personal digital assistant (“PDA”) art.
`
`PDA 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.
`
`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.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`
`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”). EX1208. 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.
`
`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).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`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.
`
`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).
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`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 – IPR2022-01553
`
`
`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.1 This Petition also relies on an expert
`
`declaration of Dr. Andrew B. Lippman (EX1203, referred to as “Lippman”).
`
`Name
`Alger
`
`Lyle
`
`Connelly
`
`Exhibit
`1205
`
`Filed
`6/25/2001
`
`Published/Issued
`1/23/2003
`
`Prior Art
`§102(b)
`
`1206
`
`1207
`
`11/21/2001
`
`7/10/2007
`
`3/29/2001
`
`10/3/2002
`
`§102(e)
`
`§102(b)
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenged is Based
`
`The Challenged Claims are rendered unpatentable based on:
`
`Ground Statute
`1
`§103
`
`Art Cited
`Alger and Lyle
`
`§103
`
`Alger, Lyle, and Connelly
`
`2
`
`
`
`Claims Challenged
`1-12, 14-16, 22-24, 36-
`50, 52-53, 58, 70-83,
`and 90-92
`13, 51, and 84
`
`
`1 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
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`
`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.
`
`(a) The Fintiv factors do not apply
`
`Denial would be improper based on Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-0019,
`
`Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) because the Petition presents compelling evidence
`
`of unpatentability. Interim Procedure For Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant
`
`Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation, at 3-4 (Jun. 21, 2022).
`
`(b) The General Plastic factors do not apply
`
`The ’584 Patent has not been challenged in any prior IPR petition. As such,
`
`none of the discretionary factors in General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon
`
`Kabsuhiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 16 (PTAB Sep., 6, 2016) (Section
`
`II.B.4.i precedential) apply to this Petition, and discretionary denial is not warranted.
`
`(c) The Becton, Dickinson factors favor institution
`
`None of the asserted references or Dr. Lippman’s testimony were disclosed,
`
`cited, or considered during prosecution. As such, the discretionary factors in Becton,
`
`Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsugen AG, IPR2017-01586 Paper 8 (PTAB Dec.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`15, 2017) (precedential) weigh in favor of institution, and discretionary denial is not
`
`warranted.
`
`The asserted references are materially different from the prior art considered
`
`by the Examiner; and are not cumulative of the art actually relied upon during
`
`prosecution. As discussed below, the Examiner never rejected the Challenged
`
`Claims and noted in reasons for allowance that the art of record did not teach certain
`
`features. But the asserted references teach the features that the Examiner found
`
`lacking in the art of record. For at least this reason, Alger is materially different and
`
`not cumulative of the art of record.
`
`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.” EX1201, Abstract.
`
`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). Id. 3:59-60.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`
`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, ¶53; EX1202, pp.26-41, 44-52.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`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
`
`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.” EX1202, 49-50; Lippman, ¶55.
`
`C. Overview of Technology and Asserted Prior Art
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Technology
`
`The architecture recited in the Challenged Claims was well known before the
`
`priority date of the ’584 Patent. Lippman, ¶69.
`
`A Pocket PC is a computing device “that can rest on your hand and fit in your
`
`pocket.” PocketPC Guide, p.27. Pocket PCs utilize the Windows CE operating
`
`system, “can connect to the Internet,” and can be used to “send and receive e-mail,
`
`browse [and download] any Web site, transfer files,” “read books, and listen to
`
`music,” and “play video.” PocketPC Guide, pp.21, 27, 322, 323; Lippman, ¶70.
`
`Windows CE supports “video output to external monitors,” thus allowing the
`
`Pocket PC to display content on a “regular computer monitor.” PocketPC Guide,
`
`pp.33, 331; Lippman, ¶71. Thus, some Pocket PCs included “a port to connect an
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`
`external monitor,” and sometimes used “an adapter to connect to monitor cables.”
`
`PocketPC Guide, p.76; Lippman, ¶71.
`
`Secure network communication using encryption and digital certificates, and
`
`secure communication between portable devices and terminals using, for example,
`
`the HDCP protocol, were well known before the priority date of the ’584 Patent, as
`
`illustrated by Ford and HDCP 1.0, respectively. Lippman, ¶¶72-80.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Asserted Prior Art
`(a) Alger
`
`Alger teaches a client portal for “reviewing and purchasing electronic books.”
`
`Alger, ¶[0010]; Lippman, ¶¶81-82. The portal may access “available [preselected]
`
`sites” and sites offering “product[s] that the portal is optimized to purchase,” and
`
`may be “part of an application” that “seamlessly retrieves content from a network
`
`and integrates the content into the application.” Alger, ¶[0010]; Lippman, ¶¶82-86.
`
`The system illustrated in FIG. 1 includes a “computing device in the form of”
`
`a “personal digital assistant” (“PDA”) 120. Alger, ¶[0019]; Lippman, ¶87.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`
`Alger FIG. 1
`
`
`
`Monitor 147 is connected to PDA 120 via “video adapter 148.” Lippman, ¶87.
`
`PDA “120 may operate in a networked environment using logical connections to one
`
`or more remote computers,” such as “remote computer 149.” Alger, ¶[0022];
`
`Lippman, ¶89.
`
`Client portal 301 shown in FIG. 3 includes “operating functions 302” and
`
`“memory 303” and “provides access to obtain and convey information over a
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`network such as the Internet.” Alger, ¶[0029]; Lippman, ¶¶90-92. Operating
`
`functions 302 provide “user interfaces” (“UIs”) 304 and 305. Lippman, ¶¶90-92.
`
`Alger FIG. 3.
`
`(b) Lyle
`
`Lyle teaches “content protection using a transmitter that encrypts data, a
`
`receiver that receives and decrypts the encrypted data, and an external agent that
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`communicates with” the “transmitter and receiver to facilitate the encryption and
`
`decryption.” Lyle, 1:7-16; Lippman, ¶¶94-96.
`
`A “transition minimized differential signaling interface (‘TMDS’ link)” is
`
`used for “transmission of video data from” a “host processor” (e.g., portable
`
`computer) operating as a transmitter “to a monitor” or other display device operating
`
`as a receiver. Lyle, 1:20-28, 64-67; Lippman, ¶97.
`
`Lyle teaches “encryption and/or decryption of data in accordance with the”
`
`High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (“HDCP”) protocol and other protocols,
`
`over “a TMDS serial link” such as DVI. Lyle, 2:3-11, 7:8-16; Lippman, ¶¶98-99.
`
`An “external agent [can provide keys] to” the “receiver and transmitter.” Lyle,
`
`7:38-62; Lippman, ¶¶100-102.
`
`(c) Connelly
`
`Connelly teaches “an electronic program guide that includes information
`
`about streaming content and stored content.” Connelly, ¶¶[0001]-[0002]; Lippman,
`
`¶¶104-105. Users may record “broadcast content” for “later viewing” using digital
`
`video recorders that provide “an electronic program guide of locally stored data.”
`
`Connelly, ¶[0003]; Lippman, ¶106.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`FIG. 1 illustrates “server 110 that” provides “digital data” to “computing
`
`device 120,” such as a “portable computer, cellular telephone,” “PDA,” or
`
`“computing tablet,” which “sends a resulting signal” to “display 140.” Connelly,
`
`¶¶[0007], [0009]-[0010]; Lippman, ¶¶107-108.
`
`Connelly FIG. 1.
`
`The “software
`
`to achieve” merging “streaming and stored content
`
`information” is provided in “computing device 120” and includes “broadcast
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`coordinator software 200” and “content managers 210, 220 and 230,” as shown in
`
`FIG. 2. Connelly, ¶[0014]; Lippman, ¶¶109-111.
`
`Connelly FIG. 2.
`
`
`
`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,
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`encryption, data storage, user interfaces, and communication protocols. Lippman,
`
`¶¶60-64.
`
`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 ¶¶65-66. 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
`
`Owner’s infringement contentions:
`
`Claim Term
`
`
`“terminal”
`(Claims 1, 39, and 73)
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`
`monitor that displays video and/or
`outputs audio (See, e.g., EX1209,
`p.160; EX1208, p.72; EX1213, p.9-
`10).
`Broad enough to include initiating
`or participating in a key exchange
`(See, e.g., EX1209, pp.162-166;
`EX1208, 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 ¶68.
`
`VIII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`A. Ground 1: Combining Alger and Lyle Renders Claims 1-12, 14-
`16, 22-24, 36-50, 52-53, 58, 70-83, and 90-92 Obvious
`
`1. Motivation to Combine Alger and Lyle
`
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine Alger and Lyle to arrive at
`
`the alleged invention of Claims 1-12, 14-16, 22-24, 36-50, 52-53, 58, 70-83, and 90-
`
`92 and would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully doing so. Lippman,
`
`¶118.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`Alger and Lyle each teach delivering electronic media from a server to a
`
`computer, and, in turn, to a display connected to the computer. Id. ¶119.
`
`Alger’s system includes a computing device (i.e., PDA 120) connected to
`
`remote computer(s) (i.e., remote computer 149) over a network. Alger, ¶¶[0019]-
`
`[0022], FIG. 1; Lippman, ¶¶120-121.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`
`Alger FIG. 1.
`
`
`
`System bus 123 “couples various system components” to “processing unit
`
`121” of PDA 120, and “monitor 147” is “connected to the system bus 123” via
`
`“video adapter 148.” Alger, ¶¶[0019], [0021], FIG. 1; Lippman, ¶122.
`
`Client portal 301 “can be used with a media player application for playing
`
`back electronic media,” and can be employed to list “Web sites that offer electronic
`
`media, and then to retrieve content from these sites directly into the media player.”
`
`Alger, ¶[0049]; Lippman, ¶123.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`“[C]ontent preferred by a user” may be downloaded “to the client portal 301”
`
`but may be inaccessible “until the user actually purchases the content.” Alger,
`
`¶[0068]; Lippman, ¶124. The “downloaded content” may be “encrypted with a key
`
`that is unavailable to the user” until “the user makes an offline request to purchase
`
`the content.” Lippman, ¶124.
`
`Lyle teaches that a TMDS/TMDS-like link is used for “transmission of video
`
`data” from “a host processor” (e.g., a desktop or portable computer) operating as a
`
`transmitter “to a monitor” operating as a receiver. Lyle, 1:20-28, 64-67, 6:9-17;
`
`Lippman, ¶¶125-126.
`
`Lyle teaches “encryption and/or decryption of data in accordance with the
`
`HDCP protocol” and other protocols, for “transmission over a TMDS” link such as
`
`DVI. Lyle, 2:3-11, 3:6-16, 7:8-16; Lippman, ¶¶127-128.
`
`In the system architectures shown in FIGs. 7 and 8, where content transmitted
`
`from a source (i.e., 11 in FIG. 7 and 111 in FIG. 8, either of which could be an audio
`
`or video server) is protected by a hierarchy of protocols. Lyle, 19:4-50; Lippman,
`
`¶¶129-130.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`
`Lyle FIGs. 7 and 8.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`
`
`
`“Content authority 116, content source 111, content router 113, delivery paths
`
`121 and 122, and handshake paths 124, 125, and 126 of FIG. 8 correspond
`
`functionally to content authority 16, content source 11, content router 13, delivery
`
`paths 21 and 22, and handshake paths A, B, and C of FIG. 7.” Lyle, 25:42-47;
`
`Lippman, ¶132. Thus, “units 114 and 115 [of FIG. 8] correspond to a distributed
`
`implementation of receiver 15 of FIG. 7.” Lyle, 25:47-52; Lippman, ¶¶132-135.
`
`“[R]eceiver 15 is the final destination of the encrypted data,” is “configured
`
`to decrypt the encrypted data that it receives,” and “can be a TV set, a portable MP3
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01553
`
`player, an information kiosk,” or “another final destination.” Lyle, 19:9-17;
`
`Lippman, ¶129. “[D]elivery path 21 can” be “an internet connection” or a cable
`
`“link, and delivery path 22” is a “TMDS-like link.” Lyle, 19:41-50; Lippman, ¶131.
`
`Advanced Encryption Standard (“AES”) protocol can “encrypt data
`
`transmitted over paths 121 and 122.” Lyle, 26:15-18; Lippman, ¶136. Content source
`
`111 sends encrypted data over path 121 to router 113, which forwards the encrypted
`
`data over path 122 to recei