`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 27
`Filed: June 4, 2024
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`PETITIONER,
`
`v.
`
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC,
`PATENT OWNER.
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2023-00757
`PATENT 8,989,715
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.23 & 42.24(c)(4)
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
`CURRENT EXHIBIT LIST ...................................................................................... v
`CLAIM LISTING ...................................................................................................... x
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................... 1
`A. “Customized to Said Application” Means “Created For” the
`Application Program .................................................................................... 1
`B. The Compiled Content Must Be in Part Generated by the
`Executing Application ................................................................................. 4
`C. All Claims Require the Recited “Application” to Run
`Remotely ...................................................................................................... 6
`III. HARIKI IN VIEW OF HARRIS FAILS TO RENDER ANY
`CLAIM OBVIOUS .......................................................................................... 11
`A. No Single Application Petitioner Identifies Renders any
`Independent Claim Obvious ...................................................................... 11
`1. The UI Skin (Identified as the “Custom Configuration”)
`Does Not Configure a Plurality of Rendering Blocks to
`Render Content in a Manner Customized to a Web Server
`(Identified as the “Application”) ......................................................... 11
`2. Hariki’s Web Browser (Identified as the “Application”)
`Does Not Generate from the Web Browser’s Execution
`HTML Files (Identified as the “Compiled Content”) or
`Transmit Them to a Wireless Device Directly or Indirectly
` ............................................................................................................. 16
`B. Hariki’s UI Skin Is Not “Applicable” to the Received HTML
`Files ............................................................................................................ 17
`C. Hariki in View of Harris Additionally Does Not Teach the
`“Library” Limitations of Claims 17–20 ..................................................... 20
`IV. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ....................................... 21
`V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 22
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.,
`346 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................................. 2
`AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Communs., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 2
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 15
`AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.,
`19 F.4th 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................... 3
`B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc.,
`962 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................ 14
`DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`885 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 15
`Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern California Edison Co.,
`227 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 21
`Eli Lilly and Co. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`933 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 21
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 22
`Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks,
`815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 3
`Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp.,
`572 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 21
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966)s .......................................................................................... 14
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 11, 14
`Kilopass Tech. Inc. v. Sidense Corp.,
`No. 10-cv-02066, 2014 WL 3956703 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2014) ......................... 9
`Kingston Tech. Co., Inc. v. Imation Corp.,
`IPR2015-00066-19 (PTAB Mar. 24, 2016) ......................................................... 21
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`KS Himpp v. Head-Wear Tech., LLC,
`751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 15, 19
`Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`22 F.4th 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................... 2
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .............................................................................. 9
`Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Sony Corp.,
`181 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .............................................................................. 6
`Masimo Corp. v. Sotera Wireless, Inc.,
`No. 2022-1415, 2023 WL 6307959 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2023) ............................. 3
`Outside the Box Innovations v. Travel Caddy, Inc.,
`695 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 14
`PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 18
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .............................................................. 8
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-MOBILE USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 9
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Comm’ns RF LLC,
`815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 21
`Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc.,
`76 F.4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ............................................................................. 11
`Skky, Inc. v. Mindgeek, S.A.R.L.,
`859 F.3d 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 19
`TF3 Ltd. v. Tre Milano, LLC,
`894 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................................. 8
`TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval v. General Elec.,
`264 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .............................................................................. 9
`Wis. Alumni Rsch. Found. v. Apple Inc.,
`905 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................................. 7
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ......................................................................................................8, 9
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ................................................................................................... 18
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`Other Authorities
`PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) ........................................... 19
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`CURRENT EXHIBIT LIST1
`
`1014
`
`No. Brief Description
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,989,715
`1002
`Expert Declaration of Ben Bederson (“Bederson”)
`1003 Curriculum Vitae of Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D.
`1004
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,989,715
`1005
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,245
`1006 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0150617 (“Hariki”)
`1007 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0023755 (“Harris”)
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 7,447,486 (“Tamura”)
`1009 U.S. Patent No. 6,996,627 (“Carden”)
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 6,669,564 (“Young”)
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 6,732,183 (“Graham”)
`1012 U.S. Patent No. 6,507,727 (“Henrick”)
`1013 Webpage excerpt from Computer History Museum at
`https://www.computerhistory.org/tdih/april/6/ (last accessed
`March 29, 2023)
`https://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/05/the-evolution-of-cell-
`phone-design-between-1983-2009/
`Excerpts from Dan R. Olsen, Jr., Developing user interfaces (1998)
`1015
`1016 Alok Sinha, Client-server computing, in Communications of the ACM,
`35, 7 (1992)
`Tim Berners-Lee, Robert Cailliau, Ari Luotonen, Henrik Frystyk
`Nielsen, and Arthur Secret, The World-Wide Web,
`Communications
`Eric Kasten, HTML: A Gentle Introduction, Linux Journal (July 1995),
`available at https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/1081
`1019 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0124961 (“Linburn ”)
`
`1 Relevant portions of exhibits may be highlighted to help the Panel locate cited
`sections.
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`No. Brief Description
`1020 U.S. Patent No. 8,111,326 (“Talwar”)
`1021 Order re Scheduling Conference, GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc.,
`2:22-cv-07556 (C.D. Cal. issued Feb. 13, 2023) (Doc. 61)
`1022 Complaint in GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-
`07556-RGK-SHK (C.D. Cal. October 17, 2022)
`1023 Memorandum in Opposition to GoTV Streaming, LLC’s Motion for
`Judgment as a Matter of Law
`1024 Declaration of Stephen A. Marshall in support of Petitioner’s
`unopposed motion for pro hac vice admission.
`1025 Deposition of Mr. Stuart Lipoff (April 2, 2024) (“Lipoff Dep.”)
`1026
`Excerpts from Trial Transcript Day 2
`1027 Associated, Cambridge Learner’s Dictionary (3rd ed. 2007)
`1028
`From, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2007)
`2001 CAMPBELL-KELLY ET AL., Mainframes to Smartphones: A History of
`the International Computer Industry, Ch. 11 (Harvard Univ.
`Press 2015)
`2002 GALAZZO, Timeline from 1G to 5G: A Brief History on Cell Phones
`(Sept. 21, 2020), available at https://www.cengn.ca/information-
`centre/innovation/timeline-from-1g-to-5g-a-brief-history-on-cell-
`phones/
`2003 Cingular MEdia Mall Games and Motorola Page (March 23, 2006),
`available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20060323054853/http://www-
`xl.cingularextras.com/fuel/enduser/portal/endUserHTMLDir?c1=
`3&dc=0 and
`https://web.archive.org/web/20060323054841/http://www-
`xl.cingularextras.com/fuel/enduser/portal/endUserHTMLSelectP
`hone?makeName=motorola&dc=0
`Suite, Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster, available at
`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suite
`2005 U.S. Patent No. 7,380,205 to Bezrukov et al. (filed Oct. 28, 2003)
`
`2004
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`2008
`
`No. Brief Description
`2006
`TUTENEL ET AL., Rule-Based Layout Solving and Its Application to
`Procedural Interior Generation, Netherlands Organization for
`Scientific Research and the Netherlands ICT Research and
`Innovation Authority (2009)
`2007 KRÖNER, Adaptive Layout of Dynamic Web Pages, Deutsches
`Forschungszentrum fur Künstliche Intelligenz GmH (2000)
`Scheduling Order, GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., 2:22-cv-
`07556 (C.D. Cal. issued Feb 14, 2023) (Doc. 62)
`2009 Klausner Decisions re Motions to Stay Pending IPR, Docket Navigator
`(generated June 8, 2023)
`2010 Order Granting Stipulated Stay Pending IPR, Flexstent, LLC v. Abbott
`Labs., No. 5-18-cv-02479 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2019) (Doc.77)
`2011 Order Denying Renewed Stipulated Stay Pending IPR, Shenzhen
`Gooloo E-Commerce Co., Ltd. v. Pilot, Inc., No. 2-22-cv-02219
`(C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2023) (Doc. 95)
`2012 Renewed Joint Stipulation to Stay Case Pending Resolution of Inter
`Partes Reviews of ’653 Patent, Shenzhen Gooloo E-Commerce
`Co., Ltd. v. Pilot, Inc., No. 2-22-cv-02219 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11,
`2023) (Doc. 94)
`2013 Klausner Time to Trial in Patent Cases, Docket Navigator (generated
`June 8, 2023)
`2014 U.S. District Court—Judicial Caseload Profile for Central California
`from Federal Court Management Statistics–Profiles
`(Mar. 31, 2023), available at
`https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/fcms_na
`_distprofile0331.2023.pdf
`2015 Order Denying Netflix’s Motions, including for Invalidity under § 101,
`GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., 2:22-cv-07556 (C.D. Cal.
`issued May 24, 2023) (Doc. 109)
`2016 Order re Scheduling Conference, GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc.,
`2:22-cv-07556 (C.D. Cal. issued Feb. 13, 2023) (Doc. 61)
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`No. Brief Description
`2017
`Excerpts from Redacted and De-designated Corrected Declaration of
`Dr. John Villasenor Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos.
`8,989,715; 8,478,245; and 8,103,865, GoTV Streaming, LLC v.
`Netflix, Inc., 2:22-cv-07556 (C.D. Cal. served June 23, 2023)
`2018 Declaration of Joshua S. Wyde regarding authentication of exhibits
`(Aug. 10, 2023)
`Excerpts from Trial Transcript Day 2, GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix,
`Inc., No. 2:22-cv-07556 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2023)
`Excerpts from Trial Transcript Day 3, GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix,
`Inc., No. 2:22-cv-07556 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2023)
`2021 Defendant Netflix, Inc.’s Notice of Motion and Rule 50(a) Motion for
`Judgment as a Matter of Law, GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix,
`Inc., No. 2:22-cv-07556 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2023) (Dkt. 389)
`2022 Declaration of Mr. Stuart Lipoff
`2023 Generate, Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing, available at
`https://foldoc.org/generate (last updated June 15, 1995).
`2024 Output, TechTerms.com; The Computer Dictionary, available at
`https://techterms.com/definition/output (last updated December
`12, 2006)
`From, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, available at
`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/from (last visited
`December 12, 2023)
`2026 Customized, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, available at
`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/customized (last
`visited Jan. 05, 2024)
`2027 Application-Specific, Wiktionary, available at
`https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/application-specific (last visited
`Dec. 15, 2023)
`Excerpt from 10-K statement filed by Netflix with the Securities and
`Exchange Commission (Jan. 26, 2023)
`
`2025
`
`2028
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`2030
`
`No. Brief Description
`2029
`Excerpt from Netflix Women In Tech Event - UI Engineering - August
`2018, Jessica Berglund, Netflix UI engineer, 22:43–23:02,
`available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpIGejJiaBo
`Ethan Kao Deposition Designations Video, GoTV Streaming, LLC v.
`Netflix, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-07556 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2023)
`(Dkt. 413-13)
`2031 Deposition of Dr. Benjamin Bederson (Jan. 10, 2024)2
`2032
`Second Declaration of Joshua S. Wyde regarding authentication of
`exhibits (Jan. 26, 2024)
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Per Party agreement, Dr. Bederson gave a consolidated deposition regarding U.S.
`Patent Number 8,989,715 in IPR No. IPR2023-00757; Patent No. 8,478,245 in IPR
`No. IPR2023-00758; and U.S. Patent No. 8,103,865 in IPR No. IPR2023-00759.
`See Ex. 2031, 5:21–6:11.
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`
`1[pre]
`
`1[a]
`
`1[b]
`
`1[c]
`
`1[d]
`
`1[e]
`
`1[f]
`
`1[g]
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`CLAIM LISTING
`
`Limitation
`1. A method of generating content that is renderable by a wireless
`device, said method comprising:
`transmitting, to said wireless device, an identification of a custom
`configuration of a plurality of rendering blocks of said wireless device,
`wherein said custom configuration is associated with an application and
`configures said plurality of rendering blocks to render content in a
`manner customized to said application; and
`transmitting, to said wireless device, compiled content comprising (i)
`first compiled content specific to a first page of said application and (ii)
`second compiled content specific to a second page of said application,
`wherein said compiled content is generated in part from execution of
`said application,
`wherein said compiled content comprises render commands expressed
`in a syntax that is generic to said wireless device, and
`wherein said custom configuration is applicable to said first and second
`compiled content,
`wherein said compiled content and said custom configuration are
`usable by a graphical user interface comprising said plurality of
`rendering blocks to generate renderable content based on said compiled
`content and said custom configuration.
`2. A method as described in claim 1 wherein said renderable content
`comprises audio content and display content.
`3. A method as described in claim 1 wherein said compiled content is
`partially resultant from said application operating on a remote server.
`4. A method as described in claim 1 wherein said compiled content is
`specific to the rendering capabilities of said wireless device.
`5. A method as described in claim 1 wherein each of said plurality of
`rendering blocks operates specific to a wireless device type of said
`wireless device and each is instructed using a syntax that is generic to
`said wireless device type.
`6. A method as described in claim 5 wherein said custom configuration
`comprises a syntax that is generic regarding said wireless device type.
`7. A method as described in claim 1 wherein said custom configuration
`comprises configuration information and content specific to said
`application.
`8. A method as described in claim 1 wherein said custom configuration
`is one of a plurality of memory-stored custom configurations stored by
`said wireless device, and wherein said method further comprises
`transmitting an identifier that identifies said custom configuration.
`
`- x -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`
`9[pre]
`
`9[a]
`
`9[b]
`
`9[c]
`
`9[d]
`
`9[e]
`
`9[f]
`
`9[g]
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Limitation
`9. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions
`therein that when executed by a processor implement a method of
`generating content that is renderable by a wireless device, said method
`comprising:
`transmitting, to said wireless device, an identification of a custom
`configuration of a plurality of rendering blocks of said wireless device,
` wherein said custom configuration is associated with an application
`and configures said plurality of rendering blocks to render content in a
`manner customized to said application; and
`transmitting, to said wireless device, compiled content comprising (i)
`first compiled content specific to a first page of said application and (ii)
`second compiled content specific to a second page of said application,
` wherein said compiled content is generated in part from execution of
`said application,
`wherein said compiled content comprises render commands expressed
`in a syntax that is generic to said wireless device, and
`wherein said custom configuration is applicable to said first and second
`compiled content,
`wherein said compiled content and said custom configuration are
`usable by a graphical user interface comprising said plurality of
`rendering blocks to generate renderable content based on said compiled
`content and said custom configuration.
`10. A non-transitory computer readable medium as described in claim 9
`wherein said renderable content comprises audio content and display
`content.
`11. A non-transitory computer readable medium as described in claim 9
`wherein said compiled content is partially resultant from said
`application operating on a remote server.
`12. A non-transitory computer readable medium as described in claim 9
`wherein said compiled content is specific to the rendering capabilities
`of said wireless device.
`13. A non-transitory computer readable medium as described in claim 9
`wherein each of said plurality of rendering blocks operates specific to
`a wireless device type of said wireless device and each is instructed
`using a syntax that is generic to said wireless device type.
`14. A non-transitory computer readable medium as described in
`claim 13 wherein said custom configuration comprises a syntax that is
`generic regarding said wireless device type.
`15. A non-transitory computer readable medium as described in claim 9
`wherein
`said
`custom
`configuration
`comprises
`configuration
`information and content specific to said application.
`
`- xi -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`
`16
`
`17[a]
`17[b]
`
`17[c]
`
`Limitation
`16. A non-transitory computer readable medium as described in claim 9
`wherein said method further comprises transmitting an identifier that
`identifies said custom configuration.
`17[pre] 17. A server that is programmed to generate content that is renderable
`by a wireless device, comprising:
`a library of applications;
`a
`library of custom configuration data comprising a custom
`configuration that configures a plurality of rendering blocks of said
`wireless device to render content in a manner customized to an
`application from said library of applications requested by said wireless
`device; and
`a layout solver that transmits compiled content to said wireless device,
`said compiled content comprising (i) first compiled content specific to
`a first page of said application and (ii) second compiled content specific
`to a second page of said application,
`17[d] wherein said compiled content is generated in part from execution of
`said application by said server,
`17[e] wherein said compiled content comprises render commands expressed
`in a syntax that is generic to said wireless device, and
`17[f] wherein said custom configuration is applicable to said first and second
`compiled content,
`17[g] wherein said compiled content and said custom configuration are
`usable by a graphical user interface comprising said plurality of
`rendering blocks to generate renderable content based on said compiled
`content and said custom configuration.
`18. A server as described in claim 17 wherein said renderable content
`comprises audio content and display content.
`19. A server as described in claim 17 wherein said compiled content is
`specific to the rendering capabilities of said wireless device.
`20. A server as described in claim 17 wherein said custom
`configuration comprises configuration information and content specific
`to said application.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`- xii -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`Petitioner now has clarified some of its positions, but it also has
`
`inappropriately taken new invalidity positions in its Reply as identified herein.
`
`Regardless, Petitioner has not shown any claim is obvious as there is not one
`
`application that meets the claim limitations, at least because the UI skin Petitioner
`
`identifies as the custom configuration does not customize for Hariki’s web server
`
`and Hariki’s web browser does not generate the HTML, even in part, still less while
`
`executing remotely so that the compiled content can be transmitted to a wireless
`
`device. Additionally, Petitioner has not proven the references teach the UI skin is
`
`applicable to HTML within a browser. As for the “library claims,” Petitioner has
`
`not shown a library of applications or that the web server is an application within the
`
`library. Patent Owner discusses these and other issues in this Sur-Reply.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A. “Customized to Said Application” Means “Created For” the Application
`Program
`
`[1b/9b] wherein said custom configuration is associated with an application
`and configures said plurality of rendering blocks to render content in a manner
`customized to said application
`
`[17b] . . . custom configuration that configures a plurality of rendering blocks
`of said wireless device to render content in a manner customized to an
`application . . .
`
`Petitioner first argues that the Board should define “customized to an
`
`application” per a separate limitation “associated with an application,” citing ACTV
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`for the uncontroversial proposition that the surrounding words of a claim should be
`
`considered when defining a term.3 Reply 2. Looking at the surrounding words,
`
`however, the Board can see that the claim lists the “associated” and “configures”
`
`limitations separately, so there is “a presumption that those components are distinct.”
`
`Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1382
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). The claims require the custom configuration be
`
`more than “associated” with the application. The custom configuration must also
`
`configure rendering blocks to “render content in a manner customized to said
`
`application.” Limitations 1b, 9b, & 17b. It is inappropriate to merge the two
`
`requirements to “read out” the narrower requirement. See AllVoice Computing PLC
`
`v. Nuance Communs., Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1247–48 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (explaining
`
`that courts should not merge separate terms because this would make one limitation
`
`superfluous).
`
`Second, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner is attempting to vary the plain
`
`meaning of the term “customized,” Reply 3–4; however, as set forth in the Response,
`
`“created for” is the plain meaning of the term customized. Paper 21 (“POR”) 16
`
`(explaining that this is the dictionary meaning and how a POSITA uses the term in
`
`
`3
`In ACTV the language of the claims defined the term, so the court simply adopted
`the definition and found there was no reason to look to extrinsic evidence. ACTV,
`Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`the relevant field). Moreover, it is often the case that an applicant has not explicitly
`
`defined a term, and in such a case it is proper to use words not found in the
`
`specification to capture the meaning in light of the patent’s teachings. Masimo Corp.
`
`v. Sotera Wireless, Inc., No. 2022-1415, 2023 WL 6307959, at *3 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Sept. 28, 2023) (affirming a term as the definition of a claim limitation even though
`
`the “specification does not use the term” because “there is nothing inconsistent
`
`between the plain meaning [the PTAB] derived from the intrinsic evidence and the
`
`meaning it drew from the dictionary”).
`
`Here, at least because the specification teaches there is a corresponding
`
`custom configuration the server chooses based upon the application, a POSITA
`
`understood that “customized to” means “created for.” Ex. 2022 ¶122; see also
`
`AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 19 F.4th 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
`
`(“[T]he ordinary meaning of a claim term is not ‘the meaning of the term in the
`
`abstract’ . . . Instead, the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the
`
`ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.”) (quoting Eon Corp. IP Holdings v.
`
`Silver Spring Networks, 815 F.3d 1314, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) (second level of
`
`internal quotations removed).
`
`Third, Petitioner critiques Patent Owner for putting forth several synonymous
`
`definitions all generally meaning “created for” and takes particular issue with
`
`Patent Owner’s proposal that a custom configuration must be “designed for” an
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`application. Reply 4. There is nothing controversial in this understanding: it is
`
`straight-forward that to have a customized configuration that customizes the look and
`
`feel of an application, the creator must know what the application is, in the same
`
`way a tailor cannot make a “custom” suit without knowing who will be wearing the
`
`suit. See Ex. 2022 ¶¶121–22.
`
`B. The Compiled Content Must Be in Part Generated by the Executing
`Application
`
`[1d/9d/17d] wherein said compiled content is generated in part from
`execution of said application [by said server]
`
`In light of Petitioner’s protestation that Patent Owner “offers no coherent
`
`construction at any point,” see Reply 11–12, Patent Owner makes clear that
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “compiled content is generated in part
`
`from execution of said application” means “said application produces/outputs some
`
`part of the compiled content during its execution.” POR 28–29; Ex. 2022 ¶113.
`
`Petitioner mostly summarizes Patent Owner’s positions correctly, Reply 11–
`
`12: (1) the limitation requires the application to generate (i.e., be the “source of”)
`
`the compiled content, POR 28–30; (2) “from execution” means the running
`
`application is the source of the compiled content, not a “but for” cause or
`
`“triggering event,” id. 29–32; and, (3) the “in part” of “generated in part” refers to
`
`the generation, id. 32–33.
`
`However, Petitioner misunderstands Patent Owner’s position in one regard:
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`Patent Owner acknowledges the specification does teach the client software is an
`
`initiating cause (i.e., the client’s request for the application causes the remote
`
`application on the server to execute and generate compiled content). Cf. Reply 12.
`
`Patent Owner’s point is that even though the client’s request is an initiating cause,
`
`the Patent-at-Issue still does not recognize the execution of the client software
`
`“generates” the compiled content. POR 31. The Patent-at-Issue makes clear that it
`
`is the remote application on the server that is executed and generates the compiled
`
`content sent to the client. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 19:38–40.
`
`Petitioner argues that “‘from’ in the context of the claim language is the
`
`‘starting point of an activity’ or ‘upon’” (emphasis in original) and cites a general
`
`dictionary. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1028). First, a dictionary definition is divorced from “the
`
`context of the claim language.” Second, “upon” does not appear in the definition. Third,
`
`Petitioner omits portions of the definition that actually says “the starting or focal point of an
`
`activity” (emphasis added) and gives examples of “called me [from] a pay phone” and “ran a
`
`business [from] her home.” Ex. 1028 3–4. So, even Petitioner’s definition emphasizes that
`
`“from” means where the generation is occurring and supports that the remote application on
`
`the server is generating the compiled content because that is where the generation is coming
`
`“from.”
`
`Finally, it is not true that Patent Owner’s position “would read out the term
`
`‘execution.’” Reply 13. Patent Owner’s definition explicitly provides for the fact that
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`“from execution” means the executing application is the source of the compiled content as
`
`taught. Ex. 1001 19:38–40 (teaching that “the server may execute the requested application”
`
`and “[t]he server may then determine whether the executed application produces dynamic
`or static content”) (emphasis added).
`C. All Claims Require the Recited “Application” to Run Remotely
`
`[1c/9c/17c] [transmitting, to said wireless device, / . . . transmits compiled
`content to said wireless device, said] compiled content comprising (i) first
`compiled content specific to a first page of said application and (ii) second
`compiled content specific to a second page of said application
`
`[1d/9d/17d] wherein said compiled content is generated in part from
`execution of said application [by said server]
`
`Petitioner argues that Patent Owner is merely trying to append limitations,
`
`Reply 5–6; however, limitations may be implied as a matter of basic logic. For
`
`instance, while the general rule is that steps of a patent are not limited to a specific
`
`order, when it only makes sense that one step be done before another, courts will
`
`issue a claim construction mandating that the steps must be done in a particular order.
`
`See, e.g., Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Sony Corp., 181 F.3d 1313, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Looking at limitations 1c/d, 9c/d, and 17c/d shows that the only logical reading of
`
`the claims is that the application is remote. POR § V.C.
`
`Petitioner correctly notes that Claims 1 and 9 do not require that an application
`
`directly transmit compiled content, Reply 6; however, something must transmit the
`
`application’s compiled content to the mobile device. For instance, Claim 17
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`speci