`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