throbber
Paper No. 8
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.)
`TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Industries Holdings (H.K.) Limited
`TTE Technology, Inc. (d/b/a TCL North America)
`TTE Corporation
`TCL Moka International Limited
`TCL Moka Manufacturing S.A. de C.V.
`TCL King Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Co. Ltd.
`Manufacturas Avanzadas S.A. de C.V.
`TCL Smart Device (Vietnam) Co., Ltd
`Shenzhen TCL New Technology Co., Ltd.
`TCL Optoelectronics Technology (Huizhou) Co., Ltd.
`TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
`TCL Technology Group Corporation (f/k/a TCL Corp.),
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`LG Electronics Inc.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00240
`Patent No. 7,982,803
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`A. Overview of the ’803 Patent .................................................................. 2
`B.
`Challenged Claims ................................................................................ 4
`III. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................... 7
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8
`V.
`SUMMARY OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCE (BOUDREAU) ............ 10
`VI. THE PETITION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ...................................................................... 13
`A.
`Legal Standard ..................................................................................... 13
`B.
`Petitioner fails to establish that all elements of the challenged
`claims can be found in Boudreau ........................................................ 14
`1.
`Petitioner’s reliance on Boudreau’s “related content”
`(e.g., audio for the doll) is incorrect ......................................... 14
`Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that
`Boudreau discloses “a switching unit selecting paths for
`the video signal that is input to the video signal
`processing unit.” ........................................................................ 17
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 18
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2023-00240
`
`
`
`CASES
`Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 14
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................. 13, 14
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................................................................. 4, 13, 14
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The inventions disclosed in the ’803 Patent are not at all like the cited prior
`
`art (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/00117858, “Boudreau”) (EX1003), and Petitioner
`
`fails to establish otherwise. While the ’803 Patent is directed to the synchronization
`
`of the audio and video for content being displayed on a television, Boudreau’s
`
`disclosure relates to manipulation of an entirely separate audio signal. More
`
`specifically, Boudreau describes its invention as a multi-device system involving a
`
`television and a separate device (a doll), which can be used to supplement a
`
`television program by coordinating the television’s audio and video with the doll’s
`
`audio. EX1003, ¶0016. Controlling the processing for the main television audio (as
`
`in the ’803 Patent) is not equivalent to processing separate audio for a doll.
`
`Petitioner muddles this distinction and builds its arguments on top of an
`
`unsupported assumption that the doll’s audio and the television’s audio in Boudreau
`
`can be relied upon interchangeably. Petitioner’s attempt to map these two distinct
`
`and separate audio signals (the doll’s audio and the television’s audio) to the single
`
`audio signal claimed in the ’803 Patent should be rejected. Further, because the
`
`audio signal that Petitioner maps in Boudreau is handled separately from the
`
`television video, Petitioner has failed to show that Boudreau discloses the claimed
`
`“switching unit,” which selects a path for both the video signal and the audio signal.
`
`Patent Owner therefore respectfully requests that the Board deny institution of the
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`Petition.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Overview of the ’803 Patent
`The ’803 Patent is directed to an apparatus and methods for synchronizing
`
`audio and video signals that are input to a digital television, particularly in scenarios
`
`where one or both of the audio and video signals are subsequently routed out of the
`
`television to an external device. EX1001, 1:12-23, FIG. 4 (annotated and reproduced
`
`below) (illustrating audio input and video input in red boxes and audio output and
`
`video output in a yellow box).
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`At the time of the invention in 2005, most digital televisions were equipped
`
`with an image processor capable of providing high-definition images, however, such
`
`televisions often lacked an audio processor capable of providing high-quality audio.
`
`Id. at 1:36-2:3. And thus, with respect to prior art systems, it was a common practice
`
`to output the audio signal from the television to an external audio system equipped
`
`with superior audio processing capabilities. Id. This practice, however, presented
`
`synchronization issues between the audio and video. Id. at 2:4-34. When both the
`
`audio signal and the video signal are processed internally by the television, the
`
`television was able to determine the timing difference between the audio processing
`
`and video processing and delay one of the signals to synchronize the signals. Id.
`
`However, when the audio is outputted to and processed by an external device, the
`
`television was no longer able to determine the timing difference between the audio
`
`and video processing for synchronization purposes. Id.
`
`To solve these problems in the prior art, the ’803 Patent teaches that the
`
`decision whether to route the audio signal through the television’s internal
`
`processing can be made based on a type or kind of the external device. Id. at 2:38-
`
`3:36; see also id. at 8:16-19 (explaining that in some embodiments “an output path
`
`is automatically controlled for the synchronization of an audio signal according to
`
`the result of detecting the kinds of external devices”). Controlling the processing
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`based on the external device further avoids issues with prior art synchronization
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`techniques that manually delayed signals because there are many variations that
`
`impact the potential delay required. Id. at 2:4-34.
`
`B. Challenged Claims
`The Petition challenges Claims 1-18 of the ’803 Patent as unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0117858 (“Boudreau”).
`
`The challenged claims include five (5) independent claims that are directed to
`
`apparatuses and two (2) independent claims that are directed to methods. Petitioner
`
`does not substantially differentiate between the different independent claims, and
`
`thus the arguments below about Claim 1 apply equally to the other independent
`
`claims. See, e.g., Petition, pp. 29-51 (challenging the independent claims with
`
`references back to its arguments for Claim 1).
`
`Independent Claim 1 recites1:
`
`1. An audio and video synchronizing apparatus comprising:
`a video signal processing unit processing a video signal that is
`provided to a display device of video processing equipment;
`an audio signal processing unit processing an audio signal that
`is provided to an audio device of the video processing equipment, the
`audio signal synchronized with the video signal;
`
`
`1 Herein, all emphasis is added, unless noted otherwise.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`a switching unit selecting paths for the video signal that is input
`to the video signal processing unit and the audio signal that is input to
`the audio signal processing unit, and selecting at least an audio signal
`for output to an external device that is not part of the video processing
`equipment;
`an outputting unit outputting the selected at least an audio signal
`to the external device; and
`an output selecting unit controlling the switching unit according
`to a kind of the external device,
`wherein the switching unit is controlled to select a first audio
`signal that bypasses the audio signal that is input to the audio signal
`processing unit as the at least an audio signal for output to the
`external device or to select a second audio signal output from the
`audio signal processing unit as the at least an audio signal for output
`to the outputting unit.
`
`Like Claim 1, all of the independent claims include claim language requiring
`
`that “the audio signal” could be played directly from the speakers of the television,
`
`but if the audio signal is instead output to an external device then the signal is either
`
`processed by, or bypasses the processing of, the television’s internal audio processor
`
`unit.
`
` Independent Claim 6 recites, “an audio signal processing unit processing an
`
`audio signal that is provided to an audio device of the video processing
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`equipment,” and an “output selecting unit” that selects either a first or second
`
`audio signal “as the audio signal that is output to the external device.”
`
` Independent Claim 7 recites, “an audio signal processing unit outputting an audio
`
`signal,” and an “audio output selecting unit” that selects “as the audio signal that
`
`is output to the external device” either “an audio signal that bypasses the audio
`
`signal that is input to the audio signal processing unit” or “an audio signal output
`
`from the audio signal processing unit.”
`
` Independent Claim 8 recites, “an audio signal processing unit processing an
`
`audio signal that is provided to an audio device of the video processing
`
`equipment,” and an “output selecting unit [that] controls the outputting unit to”
`
`select the outputting audio signal as either “a first audio signal that bypasses the
`
`audio signal that is input to the audio signal processing unit” or “a second audio
`
`signal output from the audio signal processing unit.”
`
` Independent Claim 9 recites, “an audio signal processing unit processing an
`
`audio signal that is provided to an audio device of the video processing
`
`equipment,” and an “output selecting unit [that] controls the outputting unit to”
`
`select “the outputting audio signal as either “a first audio signal that bypasses the
`
`audio signal that is input to the audio signal processing unit” or “a second audio
`
`signal output from the audio signal processing unit.”
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
` Independent Claim 10 recites, “determining a kind of an external device that is
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`not part of the video processing equipment and is connected to an output port of
`
`video processing equipment,” and “selecting an audio signal according to a result
`
`of the determination … wherein the selected audio signal is either a first audio
`
`signal that bypasses an audio signal that is input to an audio signal processing
`
`unit… or a second audio signal output from the audio signal processing unit.”
`
` Independent Claim 16 recites “selecting an output mode of video processing
`
`equipment,” “selecting an audio signal according to the selected output mode for
`
`output to an external audio device,” “outputting the selected audio signal to the
`
`external audio device, wherein the selected audio signal is either a first audio
`
`signal that bypasses an audio signal that is input to an audio device of the video
`
`processing equipment that synchronizes the audio signal with a video signal that
`
`is provided to a display device of the video processing equipment or a second
`
`audio signal output from the audio device.”
`
`III. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`For the limited purpose of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not
`
`contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”), but
`
`reserves the right to do so in the event that trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Petitioner submitted that the terms in the challenged claims of the ’803 Patent
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Petition at 4. For purposes of
`
`evaluating this preliminary response, Patent Owner’s position is that the Board need
`
`not construe any claim terms in the ’803 Patent.
`
`However, as explained above in Section II.B, Patent Owner submits that the
`
`plain claim language requires that the audio signal recited in each independent claim
`
`is the audio for the video content, and this audio could be provided to the television’s
`
`audio device (speaker). This is also confirmed by the ’803 Patent’s specification:
`
`FIG. 3 illustrates the configuration of an audio and video signal
`processing unit 40 of a digital TV, a video processing equipment
`employing the present invention. Referring to FIG. 3, the digital TV
`includes an AV switch 41 switching inputted a video signal (Vin) and
`an audio signal (Ain) … an audio decoder/amplifier 45 decoding and
`amplifying the audio signal inputted through the AV switch 41, and a
`TV speaker 46 outputting the decoded and amplified audio signal.
`
`See, e.g., EX1001, 4:3-15.
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`See, e.g., EX1001, FIG. 3 (illustrating that the audio input (annotated red) can
`
`be output to the TV speaker (annotated blue) or external to the TV as audio
`
`output (annotated green)).
`
`[T]he AV switch 41 controls the audio and video signal processing
`paths, thereby allowing the audio and video output using the speaker
`46 and the display 44 of the video processing equipment, or allowing
`the audio and video output to an external device connected to an output
`port.
`
`See, e.g., id. at 5:40-45; see also id. at 6:4-17.
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`See, e.g., id. at FIG. 4 (illustrating that the audio input (annotated red) can be output
`
`to the TV speaker (annotated blue) or external to the TV as audio output (annotated
`
`green)).
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCE (BOUDREAU)
`Boudreau is directed to a multi-device system that is designed to enhance the
`
`viewing experience of a television show with separate audio content emitted from
`
`an external doll or action figure. EX1003, ¶¶ 0016, 0023, 0092; FIG. 2A
`
`(reproduced below). The doll can be used to “increase the level of interest in the
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`show” by outputting its own audio content on top of the content presented on the
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`television. Id. at ¶¶ 0016, 0023. Examples provided by Boudreau include a child
`
`workout show where the doll is configured to output phrases like “let’s work out”
`
`and an educational show where the doll is configured to output phrases like “stay
`
`fit.” Id. at ¶¶ 0024-25.
`
`
`
`
`
`In Boudreau, the content presented on the external device (e.g., doll’s audio)
`
`is specifically defined as “related content” that can be presented in coordination with
`
`a television show: “Herein such content that is related (e.g., relatedness as to subject
`
`matter, message, theme, etc.) to programming presented on a television and is for
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`download (or transmittal) to an external device will be referred to as related
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`content.” Id. at ¶ 0015 (emphasis added). Consistent with industry standards at the
`
`time, Boudreau explains “related content” (e.g., doll’s audio) would be separated
`
`into a different elementary data stream from the television program’s main audio
`
`and video:
`
`An MPEG encoder such as the encoder 520 receives content such as
`video and audio signals and converts the content into digitized streams
`of content known as elementary streams. The encoder produces
`separate elementary streams for the video content and the audio content.
`In many instances, an MPEG program, such as a movie, includes a
`video elementary stream, audio elementary streams in multiple
`different languages, and associated elementary streams, which
`include things such as the director's comments, out takes, etc., or
`whatever the producer or distributor or others desire to associate with
`the movie, such as related content to download to an external
`device.
`
`Id. at ¶ 0035 (emphasis added).
`
`Boudreau teaches that “related content” is transmitted to the doll through an
`
`“XPORT buffer” and with a software program referred to as the “XPORT
`
`application.” Id. at ¶ 0069. The “XPORT application” in Boudreau “includes
`
`functionality for effecting the retrieval of related content from a data stream,
`
`routing related content to an appropriate buffer or buffers, and interpreting time
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`stamps for the related content designated for transmittal and/or download[.]” Id. at
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`¶ 0072. However, nothing in Boudreau indicates that the XPORT application has
`
`any involvement with processing the main audio or video for presentation on the
`
`television’s display and through the television’s speakers.
`
`VI. THE PETITION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS
`The Board should deny institution because Petitioner fails to show that there
`
`is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the
`
`challenged claims. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`For brevity, the Patent Owner addresses only those arguments that are
`
`necessary for the Board to determine whether to institute trial at this stage and makes
`
`no admission or waiver with respect to arguments not addressed herein. Further, to
`
`avoid confusion and facilitate the Board’s review, the Patent Owner adopts the
`
`Petition’s labeling of claim elements of the ’803 Patent for this Response without
`
`accepting the substance of the Petition’s arguments or any substantive implications
`
`of such labeling.
`
`A. Legal Standard
`Petitioner asserts a single obviousness ground for unpatentability in view of a
`
`single prior art reference, Boudreau. However, while framed as an “obviousness”
`
`challenge under Section 103, the arguments are more akin to an anticipation
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`argument under Section 102. Petitioner never identifies any potential modification
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`to Boudreau. In any case—whether considered as an “obviousness” argument or an
`
`“anticipation” argument—Petitioner must show that all claim elements are present
`
`in the cited art. See Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987,
`
`993 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (reversing obviousness determination for failing to explain how
`
`the cited art “disclose all of the elements recited in the challenged claims”).
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner fails to establish that all elements of the challenged
`claims can be found in Boudreau
`The ’803 Patent is fundamentally different from that of Boudreau. The ’803
`
`Patent is directed to synchronizing the audio and video signals input to a digital
`
`television (EX1001, 1:12-23), whereas Boudreau is directed to an audio signal that
`
`is entirely separate from the audio and video designated for the television, see supra
`
`§ V, pp.10–13. Petitioner muddles this distinction and simply assumes—without
`
`providing any explanation or citation—that Boudreau’s disclosure of a doll’s audio
`
`can be mapped to the audio inputted into a television. This flawed analysis should
`
`be rejected.
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on Boudreau’s “related content” (e.g.,
`audio for the doll) is incorrect
`The claims require a scheme for selectively processing, or bypassing the
`
`processing of, the main audio for the video content displayed on the television. As
`
`discussed in Section II.B, the independent claims require the audio signal outputted
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`to an external device to be an audio signal that the processing unit could alternatively
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`provide to the television’s speakers. See also, e.g., EX1001 at 4:3-5, 5:40-45, FIG.
`
`3, FIG. 4, 7:21-27.
`
`Petitioner ignores this requirement and argues that the claims can be satisfied
`
`based on a piecemeal mapping of Boudreau’s doll audio and television audio. With
`
`respect to limitation 1[b], Petitioner argues that Boudreau discloses “an audio signal
`
`processing unit processing an audio signal that is provided to an audio device of the
`
`video processing equipment” by citing to Boudreau’s disclosure of a digital home
`
`communication terminal (DHCT) and the DHCT’s capability of processing the
`
`television’s audio. Petition at 31-32. Petitioner even specifically cites to the use of
`
`“an audio elementary stream” for an MPEG picture in Boudreau—something that is
`
`expressly distinct from “related content” in Boudreau. Compare Petition at 32
`
`(citing EX1003 at ¶ 0043), with EX1003 at ¶ 0035. Nonetheless when addressing
`
`the same “audio signal” in limitation 1[c], Petitioner cites to “XPORT application”
`
`in Boudreau, which is used exclusively for the doll’s audio (“related content”) and
`
`not the television’s audio signal. Petition at 32-33; EX1003 at ¶ 0072 (the XPORT
`
`application is used “for effecting the retrieval of related content … routing related
`
`content … and interpreting time stamps for the related content designated for
`
`transmittal and/or download to the external device.”). The same audio signal is also
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`recited in limitation 1[e], and Petitioner again cites to the XPORT application,
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`improperly conflating the doll’s audio with the television’s audio. Petition at 35-36.
`
`Similar to its mistake with the “audio signal,” Petitioner also disregards the
`
`fact that the same “audio processing unit” is recited in both limitations 1[b] and 1[e].
`
`Petitioner has not shown that the XPORT application (the alleged “switching unit”
`
`for 1[e]) has any ability to control the DHCT’s audio processing for the main
`
`television audio, which is what Petitioner cites for 1[b]. Compare id. at 31-32 with
`
`34-35. The sleight-of-hand in Petitioner’s approach is also highlighted by Petitioner
`
`ignoring the claimed “audio device of the video processing equipment,” recited in
`
`limitation 1[b], which is further disconnected from the XPORT application.2
`
`Petitioner’s disregard for common claim terms (e.g., audio signal, audio
`
`processing unit) is fatal to the Petition. Petitioner cannot change the meaning of the
`
`claimed “audio signal” and “audio processing unit” in order to stitch together
`
`different, incompatible aspects of Boudreau’s disclosure in a way that allegedly
`
`satisfies the Challenged Claims. Petitioner does not provide any justifiable basis
`
`that could support treating the claimed “audio signal” or “audio processing unit”
`
`
`2 Independent Claims 6, 8, 9, and 16 also recite “an audio device of the video
`
`processing equipment,” and Petitioner’s failure to address this element is an
`
`independent basis to deny institution.
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`differently in the various instances recited in the claims. Nor does Petitioner provide
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`any obviousness argument that a POSA would modify Boudreau such that the
`
`XPORT application and external doll would use the same “audio signal” as the
`
`television. Thus, because all of the claims similarly require an audio signal that may
`
`be provided to the television’s speakers (supra § II.B), Petitioner has failed to
`
`present a prima facie obviousness case against any challenged claims.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that
`Boudreau discloses “a switching unit selecting paths for the
`video signal that is input to the video signal processing unit.”
`In addition to the deficiencies noted above, Petitioner also fails to establish
`
`that Boudreau discloses the claimed “switching unit” that “select[s] for the video
`
`signal that is input to the video signal processing unit,” as required by claim
`
`limitation 1[c]. See, e.g., EX1001 at 5:40-45 (“the AV switch 41 controls the audio
`
`and video signal processing paths, thereby allowing the audio and video output
`
`using the speaker 46 and the display 44 of the video processing equipment, or
`
`allowing the audio and video output to an external device connected to an output
`
`port”). Petitioner contends that the claimed “switching unit” is disclosed by the
`
`Boudreau’s disclosure of the “XPORT application.” Petition at 32-36. However,
`
`as discussed above, Petitioner fails to show that the XPORT application is capable
`
`of controlling anything beyond the doll’s audio, let alone selecting paths for the
`
`video signal that is input to the video signal processing unit. For this additional
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`reason, Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Boudreau renders
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`Claim 1 obvious.
`
`VII. CONCLUSION
`For at least these reasons, Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood
`
`that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, and thus
`
`the Petition for inter partes review should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`Date: March 20, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`/Eliot D. Williams/
`Eliot D. Williams (Reg. No. 50,822)
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-5692
`T: (202) 639-1334
`F: (202) 639-1167
`
`Peter H. Kang (Reg. No. 40,350)
`Brianna L. Potter (Reg. No. 76,748)
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`1001 Page Mill Road,
`Building One, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`T: (650) 739-7500
`F: (650) 739-7699
`
`Theodore W. Chandler (Reg. No.
`50,319)
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`1801 Century Park East
`Suite 2400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`T: (213) 202-5702
`F: (213) 202-5732
`
`Ferenc Pazmandi (Reg. No. 66,216)
`Lute Yang (Reg. No. 79,253)
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`101 California Street
`Suite 3200
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`T: (415) 291-6200
`F: (415) 291-6300
`
`Mark A. Speegle (Reg. No. 77,512)
`Sean Lee (Reg. No. 77,322)
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`401 South First Street
`Suite 1300
`Austin, TX 78704
`T: (512) 322-2500
`F: (512) 322-2501
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`LG Electronics Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), the undersigned certifies that the foregoing
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, exclusive of the exempted portions as provided
`
`in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a), contains no more than 3,369 words and therefore complies
`
`with the type-volume limitations of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b).
`
`
`
`Date: March 20, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Eliot D. Williams/
`Eliot D. Williams (Reg. No. 50,822)
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-5692
`United States
`T: (202) 639-1334
`F: (202) 639-1167
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`LG Electronics Inc.
`
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00240
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on the
`
`20th day of March, 2023, a complete and entire copy of the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE was served by email on the following
`
`counsel for Petitioners:
`
`Jeremy D. Peterson (Reg. No. 52,115)
`PV Law LLP
`5335 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite
`440
`Washington, DC 20015-2052
`Phone: 202.871.0140
`Fax: 202.888.3163
`Email: jeremy.peterson@pvuslaw.com
`
`
`LGE-IPRs@pvuslaw.com
`
`
`Date: March 20, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bradford A. Cangro (Reg. No. 58,478)
`PV Law LLP
`5335 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite
`440
`Washington, DC 20015-2052
`Phone: 202.871.0140
`Fax: 202.888.3163
`Email: bradford.cangro@pvuslaw.com
`
`
`/Eliot D. Williams/
`Eliot D. Williams (Reg. No. 50,822)
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-5692
`United States
`T: (202) 639-1334
`F: (202) 639-1167
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`LG Electronics Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 22 -
`
`

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket