Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10
`571-272-7822
`Entered: May 22, 2023
`
`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., and
`TCL TECHNOLOGY GROUP CORPORATION (f/k/a TCL CORP.),
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`Entered: May 22, 2023
`
`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., and
`TCL TECHNOLOGY GROUP CORPORATION (f/k/a TCL CORP.),
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`
`
`Before ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, JOHN A. HUDALLA, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`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., and TCL
`Technology Group Corporation (f/k/a TCL Corp.) (collectively,
`“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 1–18 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`7,982,803 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’803 patent”). Petitioner filed a Declaration of
`David B. Lett (Ex. 1005) with its Petition. LG Electronics Inc. (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). Under
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the
`information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is
`a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow,
`we do not institute an inter partes review.
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`Real Parties-in-Interest
`Petitioner identifies 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., and TCL Technology Group Corporation (f/k/a TCL Corp.)
`as the real parties-in-interest. Pet. 1–2. Patent Owner identifies LG
`Electronics Inc. as the real party-in-interest. Paper 6, 2.
`
`Related Matter
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), the parties identify the
`following related matter (Pet. 2; Paper 6, 2):
`LG Elecs. Inc. v. TCL Elecs. Holdings Ltd., No. 2:22-cv-00122-JRG
`(E.D. Tex. filed Apr. 21, 2022).
`
`The ’803 patent
`The ’803 patent is directed to “synchronizing an audio signal
`outputted from a digital video signal processing apparatus to an external
`device with a video signal outputted to a display device of the apparatus.”
`
`C.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`Ex. 1001, 1:6–7. The ’803 patent seeks to address the problem of
`synchronizing outputted audio and video signals in light of the relatively
`long time it takes to process video signals compared to audio signals. See id.
`at 2:4–34. Figure 3 of the ’803 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3 illustrates audio and video signal processing unit 40 of a digital TV.
`Id. at 4:3–5. Processing unit 40 includes AV switch 41 for controlling the
`processing paths of inputted video signal Vin and audio signal Ain. Id. at
`4:5–7, 4:16–17. In first video path P1, video signal Vin is decoded by
`decoder 42 and then scaled and converted by video scaler/processor 43 for
`output on display 44. Id. at 4:5–12, 4:23–31, 4:63–65. In second video
`path P2, video signal Vin is outputted at monitor output port Vout. Id. at
`4:38–43, 4:65–66. In first audio path P3, audio signal Ain is decoded and
`amplified by audio decoder/amplifier 45 for output to TV speaker 46. Id. at
`4:12–15, 4:32–36, 4:66–5:1. In second audio path P4, audio signal Ain is
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`outputted at monitor output port Aout. Id. at 4:38–43, 5:1–3. Based on
`processing time differences, first video path P1 may not be synchronized
`with second audio path P4, and first audio path P3 may not be synchronized
`with second audio path P4. Id. at 5:45–55.
`Figure 4 of the ’803 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 4 illustrates an audio and video processing circuit of a digital TV that
`additionally includes jack connection detector 50. Ex. 1001, 6:36–38. Jack
`connection detector 50 detects whether an external device is connected to
`monitor output port 47, which comprises video port 47a and audio ports 47b
`and 47c. Id. at 6:23–26, 6:50–53. Based on the detection result, jack
`connection detector 50 (or a controller in the digital TV) controls selection
`switch SW1. Id. at 6:32–43. If the detection result shows that the external
`device is connected to all audio and video ports 47a, 47b, and 47c, then the
`external device is deemed to be an audio/video device. Id. at 7:3–6. In this
`case, selection switch SW1 is controlled to select second audio path P4 such
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`that signals bypassed from AV switch 41 to audio output port Aout and
`video output port Vout are outputted to audio output ports 47b and 47c and
`video output port 47a of monitor output port 47. Id. at 7:27–33. If the
`detection result shows that the external device is connected only to audio
`ports 47b and 47c and not connected to video port 47a, then the external
`device is deemed to be just an audio device. Id. at 7:6–9. In this case,
`selection switch SW1 is controlled to select third audio path P5, which is a
`path from an output port of audio decoder/amplifier 45 or an input port of
`TV speaker 46 to audio output port Aout (and on to audio output ports 47b
`and 47c of monitor output port 47). Id. at 6:7–10, 7:12–17. In this way, the
`audio signal synchronized with a video signal that is outputted to display 44
`is also outputted to the audio device connected to monitor output port 47.
`Id. at 7:17–20.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 6–10, and 16 are independent.
`Claims 2–5 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1; claims 11–15 depend
`from claim 10; and claims 17 and 18 depend from claim 16. Claim 1 is
`illustrative of the challenged claims and recites:
`1.
`[pre] An audio and video synchronizing apparatus
`comprising:
`[a] a video signal processing unit processing a video
`signal that is provided to a display device of video processing
`equipment;
`[b] an audio signal processing unit processing an audio
`signal that is provided to an audio device of the video
`
`D.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`processing equipment, the audio signal synchronized with the
`video signal;
`[c] 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;
`[d] an outputting unit outputting the selected at least an
`audio signal to the external device; and
`[e] 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.
`Ex. 1001, 8:30–54 (Petitioner’s designators added in brackets).
`
`Prior Art
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0117858
`A1, filed Dec. 12, 2002, published June 17, 2004 (Ex. 1003,
`“Boudreau”).
`
`The Asserted Ground
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–18 of the ’803 patent based on the
`following ground (Pet. 4):
`35 U.S.C. §
`Claim(s) Challenged
`103(a)1
`1–18
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The Petition
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Boudreau
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`
`A.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`We now consider Petitioner’s asserted grounds and Patent Owner’s
`arguments to determine whether Petitioner has met the “reasonable
`likelihood” standard for institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Legal Standards
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`of skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
`considerations.2 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`We also recognize that prior art references must be “considered together
`with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d
`559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).
`
`
`takes inconsistent positions as to whether the pre- or post-AIA versions of
`§§ 102 and 103 apply. Compare Pet. 4 (arguing for post-AIA), with id. at
`15–16 (arguing for pre-AIA). Because the ’803 patent claims priority to an
`application filed before March 16, 2013 (the effective date of the relevant
`amendments), the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 apply.
`2 The present record does not include any evidence of secondary
`considerations of nonobviousness.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Citing testimony from Mr. Lett, Petitioner contends a person of
`ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least an undergraduate degree in
`electrical or computer engineering or closely related scientific field, or
`similar advanced post-graduate education, and at least two years of
`experience with audio and video synchronization.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005
`¶¶ 54–58). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of
`ordinary skill in the art at this time. Prelim. Resp. 7.
`For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the
`level of ordinary skill in the art without the two instances of “at least,” which
`introduce ambiguity. On the present record, we are satisfied that this
`definition comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and
`implement the teachings of the ’803 patent and the asserted prior art.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, we construe each claim
`using the same claim construction standard that would be used
`to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C.
`[§] 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with
`the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the
`prosecution history pertaining to the patent.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Accordingly, our claim construction standard is the
`same as that of a district court. See id. Under the standard applied by
`district courts, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary
`meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`C.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`(en banc). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a
`patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when
`the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the
`specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am.
`LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner puts forth terms of the challenged
`claims for construction. See Pet. 4; Prelim. Resp. 8. For purposes of this
`Decision, we determine that no aspects of the challenged claims require
`explicit construction. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368,
`1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms
`. . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`D. Obviousness Ground Based on Boudreau
`Petitioner contends the subject matter of claims 1–18 would have been
`obvious over Boudreau. Pet. 29–51. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s
`contentions. Prelim. Resp. 14–18.
`
`Boudreau
`1.
`Boudreau is a U.S. patent application publication directed to
`synchronizing content displayed on a television set with related content
`presented at an external device. Ex. 1003 ¶ 16. Figure 2A of Boudreau is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`
`
`Figure 2A illustrates an example of a recreational and educational TV
`implementation for a multi-media system including “an external device
`embodied as a doll 210” that is implemented in a subscriber television
`system. Id. ¶¶ 7, 23. External device circuitry 200 (hardware and/or
`software) incorporated into doll 210 receives content (as represented by the
`zigzag line) from digital home communication terminal (DHCT) 16. Id.
`¶ 24. Television show audio emanates from television set 741 (or from
`remote speakers for television set 741) and from doll 210 (or from only
`doll 210). Id. Doll 210 preferably receives this audio content in real-time
`with the television show presentation. Id. “The presentation of content
`displayed on the television set can be synchronized with the related content
`presentation at the external device.” Id. ¶ 16.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`Figure 6B of Boudreau is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 6B depicts information that is transmitted to DHCT 16 to enable the
`DHCT 16 to parse out and route content to the proper destinations. Ex. 1003
`¶ 49. Headers 618 of MPEG application streams 614 include Program
`Association Table (PAT) 610 and Program Map Table (PMT) 612. Id.
`PAT 610 associates the MPEG programs transmitted from a headend with
`their respective Program Map Table 612 using the packet identifier (PID)
`value of the PMTs. Id. PMT 612 maps the elementary streams of a program
`to their respective PID streams. Id. ¶ 50. For the depicted program 1, the
`PID value for the video stream is 54, the PID value for the audio stream is
`48, and the PID value for the related content (e.g., audio distinguished from
`audio content slated for the television set) is 49. Id.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`Figure 7A of Boudreau is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 7A depicts DHCT 16 that is coupled to headend 11, television
`set 741, and external device 710. Ex. 1003 ¶ 51. DHCT 16 includes signal
`processing system 714, which comprises demodulating system 716 and
`transport demultiplexing and parsing system 718 to process broadcast
`content. Id. ¶ 53. Parsing capabilities within demultiplexing and parsing
`system 718 allow for interpretation of sequence and picture headers,
`including annotating their locations within their respective compressed
`stream for future retrieval from storage device 773 and/or acquiring routing
`instructions for particular buffer destinations in memory 739. Id. ¶ 58. The
`destination buffers may include XPORT buffer 735, audio buffer 736, and
`video buffer 737. Id. ¶¶ 58, 60, 62–63. In particular, XPORT buffer 735 is
`used to buffer related content for subsequent delivery to external device 710.
`Id. ¶ 52. DHCT 16 also includes a transceiver 771 driven by transceiver
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`driver 711 in operating system 753 that preferably formats the signal to
`enable communication to (and from) external device 710. Id. ¶ 52.
`Memory 739 includes XPORT application 709, which effects the
`retrieval of related content from a data stream, routing of related content to
`an appropriate buffer or buffers, and interpretation of time stamps for related
`content designated for transmittal and/or download to external device 710 in
`association with presenting content on television set 741. Ex. 1003 ¶ 72.
`The characteristics of the external device 710 (e.g., decoding functionality)
`may be acquired by transceiver driver 711. Id. ¶ 73. Based on these
`characteristics, XPORT application 709 decides whether to route content
`from XPORT buffer 735 to decoding functionality in DHCT 16 and/or to
`process the content (in cooperation with transceiver driver 711) for
`transmittal to external device 710. Id. Thus, when external device 710 has
`resident decoding functionality, content in XPORT buffer 735 is processed
`and routed using transceiver driver 711 to the local cache for
`transceiver 771, and then transmitted to the external device 710, thus
`bypassing decoding functionality in DHCT 16. Id. ¶¶ 58, 60. When
`external device 710 does not have decoding functionality, content in XPORT
`buffer 735 is processed in the same manner as TV audio and video from
`audio buffer 736 and video buffer 737: it is presented as input to media
`engine 729 for decompression by audio decompression engine 732 and
`video decompression engine 733. Id.
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`
`2.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`a.
`Petitioner’s Contentions
`The preamble of claim 1 (“1[pre]”) recites “[a]n audio and video
`synchronizing apparatus.” Ex. 1001, 8:30. Petitioner cites Boudreau’s
`teaching of DCHT 16, “which connects to a TV 741 to display video and
`provide associated audio such that the video on the TV 741 is synchronized
`with audio played from the TV’s speaker or from the external audio
`device/speaker.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–24, Fig. 2A; Ex. 1005
`¶ 117).
`Limitation 1[a] recites “a video signal processing unit processing a
`video signal that is provided to a display device of video processing
`equipment.” Ex. 1001, 8:32–34. Petitioner cites the following elements in
`Boudreau’s DHCT 16 for teaching the “video signal processing unit”: signal
`processing system 714 (which includes demodulating system 716 and
`transport demultiplexing and parsing system 718) and media engine 729
`(which includes video decompression engine 733). Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 53–58). Petitioner contends “demodulating system 716, transport
`demultiplexing and parsing system 718, . . . and media engine 729 process
`video signals to provide signals that can be displayed on the TV 741.” Id. at
`31 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 120–121); see also id. at 30 (stating that the “video
`signal” is the “signal that is provided to a television for display”).
`Limitation 1[b] recites “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.” Ex. 1001,
`8:35–38. Petitioner cites the following elements in Boudreau’s DHCT 16
`for teaching the “audio signal processing unit”: signal processing
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`system 714 (which includes demodulating system 716 and transport
`demultiplexing and parsing system 718) and media engine 729 (which
`includes audio decompression engine 734). Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–
`58). Regarding the recited “audio signal,” Petitioner cites Boudreau’s
`teaching of an “audio elementary stream,” which is a part of encoded MPEG
`video that is processed and outputted to TV 741. Id. at 31–32 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43, 53–58). Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan
`would have known at least some MPEG audio frames to be synchronized
`with MPEG pictures when outputted to the TV. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 43;
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 124).
`Limitation 1[c] recites “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.” Ex. 1001, 8:39–43. Petitioner maps the recited
`“switching unit” to Boudreau’s XPORT application 709 as implemented in
`software. Pet. 32. Petitioner contends that Boudreau’s transceiver
`driver 711 acquires “[t]he characteristics of the external device 710 (e.g.,
`decoding functionality, etc.)” and then XPORT application 709 cooperates
`with transceiver driver 711 “to decide whether to route the content from the
`XPORT buffer 735 to decoding functionality in the DHCT 16 and/or to
`process (in cooperation with the transceiver driver 711) for transmittal to the
`external device 710.” Id. at 32–33 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 73). As such,
`Petitioner contends that XPORT application 709 “rout[es] signals input to
`the XPORT buffer 735, Audio buffer 736, and Video buffer 737, audio and
`video processing units, and select[s] video and audio outputs to external
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`device 710.” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 126); see also id. at 25–26 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 72; Ex. 1005 ¶ 111) (“An XPORT application 709 controls the
`multimedia system functionality of the DHCT 16 . . . including providing
`AV switching functionality.”).
`Limitation 1[d] recites “an outputting unit outputting the selected at
`least an audio signal to the external device.” Ex. 1001, 8:44–45. Petitioner
`cites Boudreau’s “transceiver 771 that is driven by a transceiver driver 711
`in the operating system 753 that preferably formats the signal to enable
`communication to (and from) an external device 710.” Pet. 33 (quoting
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 52). Petitioner also cites Boudreau’s teaching of audio
`emanating from doll 210. Id. at 33–34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24).
`Limitation 1[e] recites
`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.
`Ex. 1001, 8:48–54. Regarding the recited “output selecting unit,” Petitioner
`highlights Boudreau’s teachings of detecting the characteristics, such as
`decoding functionality, of external device 710. Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 18, 73. Petitioner further cites Boudreau’s teaching of XPORT
`application 709 “decid[ing] whether to route the content from the XPORT
`buffer 735 to decoding functionality in the DHCT 16 and/or to process (in
`cooperation with the transceiver driver 711) for transmittal to the external
`device 710” based on the detected characteristics of external device 710. Id.
`at 35 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 73).
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`For “select[ing] 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,” Petitioner cites Boudreau’s teaching related to
`embodiments where external device includes decoding functionality, in
`which case “the video, audio, and/or other data comprising the content in the
`XPORT buffer 735 can bypass the decoding functionality of the media
`engine 729.” Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 65); see also id. (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 58) (similar teaching from Boudreau). For “select[ing] a second audio
`signal output from the audio signal processing unit as the at least an audio
`signal for output to the outputting unit,” Petitioner cites Boudreu’s teaching
`about how “packetized compressed streams can be also output by the signal
`processing system 714, buffered to the video, audio, and/or XPORT buffers
`735-737, and presented as input to the media engine 729 for decompression
`by the video decompression engine 733 and the audio decompression
`engine 732.” Id. at 37 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 60).
`
`
`b.
`Patent Owner’s Arguments
`Patent Owner criticizes Petitioner’s analysis of claim 1 as being
`“based on a piecemeal mapping of Boudreau’s doll audio and television
`audio.” Prelim. Resp. 15. In particular, Patent Owner notes that Boudreau’s
`XPORT application (i.e., the recited “switching unit”) is “used exclusively
`for the doll’s audio (‘related content’) and not the television’s audio signal.”
`Id. (citing Pet. 32–33; Ex. 1003 ¶ 72). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner
`fails to show that Boudreau’s “XPORT application . . . has any ability to
`control the DHCT’s audio processing for the main television audio.” Id. at
`16 (citing Pet. 31–32, 34–35).
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner “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.’” Prelim. Resp. 17.
`Patent Owner notes Petitioner’s mapping of the “switching unit” to
`Boudreau’s XPORT application and argues that “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.” Id. (citing Pet. 32–36).
`
`
`c.
`Analysis
`We agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. First, Petitioner cites
`components in Boudreau’s DHCT 16, which process audio elementary
`streams outputted at TV 741, for teaching the “audio signal processing unit.”
`Pet. 31–32. In addition, Petitioner relies on Boudreau’s XPORT application
`for teaching the recited “switching unit” (id. at 32), which means that
`Petitioner must establish that the XPORT application “select[s] paths for . . .
`the audio signal that is input to the audio signal processing unit” and that “an
`output selecting unit” controls the XPORT application “to select a second
`audio signal output from the audio signal processing unit.” Yet Petitioner
`fails to show that Boudreau’s XPORT application selects paths for any audio
`signal destined for TV 741, i.e., “the audio signal that is input to the audio
`signal processing unit” and the “second audio signal output from the audio
`signal processing unit.” Instead, Petitioner conflates “content from the
`export buffer 735” with other audio and video signals as part of its
`contention that the XPORT application “rout[es] signals input to the XPORT
`buffer 735, Audio buffer 736, and Video buffer 737, audio and video
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`processing units, and selecting video and audio outputs to external
`device 710.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 126). This contention misstates the
`role of the XPORT application described in Boudreau.
`Specifically, Boudreau describes the XPORT application as follows:
`The XPORT application 709 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 stamps for the related content designated for
`transmittal and/or download to the external device 710 in
`association with the presentation of a content instance on the
`television set 741.
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 72; see also Pet. 27–28 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 114) (Petitioner
`making similar statement). Although Petitioner correctly asserts that
`XPORT application 709 routes signals from XPORT buffer 735 to decoding
`functionality in DHCT 16 or directly to external device 710 (see Pet. 26, 32–
`33, 36 (all quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 73)), these teachings only pertain to the
`XPORT application processing related content, i.e., content destined for
`external device 710. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 52 (“The XPORT buffer 735 is
`preferably used to buffer related content for subsequent delivery to the
`external device 710.”). Importantly, Boudreau distinguishes “related
`content” from content presented at the TV. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15 (“[C]ontent
`that is related (e.g., relatedness as to subject matter, message, theme, etc.) to
`programming presented on a television and is for download (or transmittal)
`to an external device will be referred to as related content.”), 50 (noting that
`TV video, TV audio, and related content elementary streams are mapped to
`respective packet identifier (PID) streams so that, inter alia, “related content
`designated for the external device . . . can be identified (and distinguished
`from audio content . . . slated for the television set) as content slated for the
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`external device”). And the preliminary record does not establish that
`Boudreau’s XPORT application processes anything other than related
`content destined for an external device. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 72. Thus, Petitioner
`fails to show that Boudreau’s XPORT application “select[s] paths for . . . the
`audio signal that is input to the audio signal processing unit” or that any
`“output selecting unit” controls the XPORT application “to select a second
`audio signal output from the audio signal processing unit.”
`Furthermore, Petitioner presents no evidence to support its assertion
`that Boudreau’s XPORT application “rout[es] signals input to . . . Audio
`buffer 736, and Video buffer 737.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 126).
`Petitioner’s only supporting citation is to Mr. Lett’s testimony, but the cited
`testimony, which merely parrots the Petition, includes no further evidence or
`explanation. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 126. And, as stated above, Boudreau does not
`describe the XPORT application as routing signals destined for output on a
`television, which undermines Petitioner’s assertion. We also have
`considered Petitioner’s characterization of “XPORT buffer 735, Audio
`buffer 736, and Video buffer 737” as being “audio and video processing
`units.” Pet. 32. We reject this characterization to the extent that Petitioner
`purports to shift or augment its analysis of the “video signal processing unit”
`and “audio signal processing unit” limitations recited earlier in the claim.
`See Pet. 30–32. Notably, Petitioner does not mention audio buffer 736 and
`video buffer 737 as part of its analysis of the recited “video signal
`processing unit” and “audio signal processing unit” limitations. See id. Nor
`does Petitioner attempt to explain how it could shift its analysis in such a
`way as to remain consistent with its earlier analysis.
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00240
`Patent 7,982,803 B2
`In addition, we have considered Petitioner’s cited teachings from
`Boudreau about how audio outputted at external device 710 can be
`synchronized with content presented on television set 741. See, e.g., Pet. 19
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 16), 32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 69). The fact that audio
`processed by XPORT application 709 for output at external device 710
`might be synchronized with audio destined for TV 741 does not mean the
`audio signals are on
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
