`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 8
`Filed: August 10, 2023
`
`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 PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. v
`
`CURRENT EXHIBIT LIST ................................................................................... vi
`
`CLAIM LISTING ................................................................................................... ix
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE PATENT-AT-ISSUE ................................................ 2
`
`A. Family and Priority ...................................................................................... 2
`
`B. Historical Context ........................................................................................ 2
`
`C. Subject Matter .............................................................................................. 7
`
`D. Invention as Illustrated through Embodiments ............................................ 8
`
`1. Applications ........................................................................................... 8
`
`2. Compiled Content and Rendering Blocks ........................................... 11
`
`3. Custom Configuration ......................................................................... 14
`
`4. Client ................................................................................................... 14
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE CITED REFERENCES ......................................... 15
`
`A. Hariki ......................................................................................................... 15
`
`B. Harris.......................................................................................................... 18
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 20
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 20
`
`VI. HARIKI IN VIEW OF HARRIS FAILS TO RENDER ANY
`CLAIM OBVIOUS ......................................................................................... 21
`
`A. Hariki Fails to Disclose Limitations 1b and 9b ......................................... 21
`
`1[a]/9[a] transmitting, to said wireless device, an
`identification of a custom configuration of a plurality of
`rendering blocks of said wireless device, ........................................ 21
`[1b]/[9b] wherein said custom configuration is associated
`with an application and configures said plurality of
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`rendering blocks to render content in a manner
`customized to said application ........................................................ 21
`1. The “Custom Configuration” Petitioner Points to in Hariki
`Is Not Associated with, and Does Not Customize
`Rendering Blocks for, an Application ................................................. 21
`
`2. Petitioner’s Hariki Citations also Support that the Device
`Skin Is Not “Associated with” or “Customized to” an
`Application .......................................................................................... 26
`
`3. The “Custom Configuration” Petitioner Points to in
`Hariki, the UI Skin, Is Not Associated with the Two
`Petitioner-Identified Applications, the Web Browser and
`Web Server .......................................................................................... 28
`
`4. The “Custom Configuration” Petitioner Points to in
`Hariki, the UI Skin, Does Not Configure a Plurality of
`Rendering Blocks to Render Content in a Manner
`Customized to Petitioner’s Two Identified Applications,
`the Web Browser and Web Server ...................................................... 30
`
`5. Petitioner Does Not Address How the Combined Hariki-
`Harris System Modification to the “Application” Meets
`This Limitation .................................................................................... 33
`
`6. Limitation Summation ......................................................................... 34
`
`B. Hariki in View of Harris Fails to Disclose Limitation 1c/9c..................... 35
`
`[1c]/[9c] 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 ..................... 35
`C. Hariki in View of Harris Fails to Disclose Limitation 1d/9d
`Under Petitioner’s Web-Browser-Is-the-Application Theory ................... 39
`
`[1d]/[9d] wherein said compiled content is generated in
`part from execution of said application .......................................... 39
`D. Hariki in View of Harris Does Not Disclose Limitation
`1e/9e/17e .................................................................................................... 40
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`[1e]/[9e]/17[e] wherein said compiled content comprises
`render commands expressed in a syntax that is generic
`to said wireless device ..................................................................... 40
`1. Harris’ WAX Files Cannot Be “Said Compiled Content”
`Because WAX Was Not Identified for Prior “Compiled
`Content” and Is Further Not “Transmitt[ed] to Said
`Wireless Device” per Limitation 1c/9c/17c ........................................ 41
`
`2. Harris’ WAX Is Translated into Syntax that is Specific to
`Said Wireless Device So Is Not Device Generic ................................ 42
`
`E. Hariki in view of Harris Does Not Disclose Limitation
`1f/9f/17f ..................................................................................................... 43
`
`[1f]/[9f]/[17f] wherein said custom configuration is
`applicable to said first and second compiled content ..................... 43
`F. Hariki, or Hariki in View of Harris, Does Not Disclose
`Limitation 1g/9g/17g ................................................................................. 47
`
`[1g]/[9g]/[17g] 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 ........................................... 47
`1. Petitioner Does Not Explain How HTML Files Would Use
`Converted Resources ........................................................................... 47
`
`2. Petitioner’s Proposed Modification Still Does Not Meet
`the Claim Limitation ........................................................................... 49
`
`3. Petitioner’s Motivation to Combine Hariki and Harris is
`Flawed ................................................................................................. 50
`
`G. Hariki Does Not Meet Limitation 17b ....................................................... 51
`
`[17a] a library of applications; ........................................................... 51
`[17b] 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 ............................................................................................... 51
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`H. Hariki Does Not Meet Limitation 17c ....................................................... 54
`
`[17c] 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 ................................................... 54
`I. Hariki Does Not Meet Limitation 17d ....................................................... 57
`
`[17d] wherein said compiled content is generated in part
`from execution of said application by said server, ......................... 57
`J. The Patent-At-Issue’s Dependent Claims Are Non-Obvious .................... 58
`
`VII. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION UNDER
`SECTION 314(A) ........................................................................................... 59
`
`A. Factor 1: Whether the Court Granted a Stay or Evidence Exists
`That One May Be Granted if a Proceeding Is Instituted ........................... 59
`
`B. Factor 2: Proximity of the Court’s Trial Date to the Board’s
`Projected Statutory Deadline for a Final Written Decision ....................... 60
`
`C. Factor 3: Investment in the Parallel Proceeding by the Court
`and the Parties ............................................................................................ 62
`
`D. Factor 4: Overlap Between Issues Raised in the Petition and in
`the Parallel Proceeding .............................................................................. 63
`
`E. Factor 5: Whether the Petitioner and the Defendant in the
`Parallel Proceeding Are the Same Party .................................................... 64
`
`F. Factor 6: Other Circumstances That Impact the Board’s
`Exercise of Discretion, Including the Merits ............................................. 65
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 66
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00200-21 (PTAB Feb. 3, 2021) ............................................................60
`Facebook, Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2017-00998-13 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2017) ...........................................................65
`Google LLC v. Agis Software Dev., LLC,
`IPR2020-00873-16 (PTAB Nov. 25, 2020) .........................................................64
`Kiosoft Techs., LLC v. Payrange Inc.,
`CBM2020-00026-11 (PTAB Mar. 22, 2021) .......................................................65
`Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc.,
`382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................56
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................41
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ............................................................20
`Sotera Wireless Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019-12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential) ....................................64
`Wi-Lan, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`811 F.3d 455 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..............................................................................41
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`770 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (en banc) ............................................................56
`Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00624-12 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) .........................................................31
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................ 59, 66
`35 U.S.C. § 314(b) ...................................................................................................60
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) .............................................................................................60
`Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6 ....................................................................................55
`
`Other Authorities
`Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant
`Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) ...................61
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`CURRENT EXHIBIT LIST1
`
`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/
`1015 Excerpts from Dan R. Olsen, Jr., Developing user interfaces (1998)
`1016 Alok Sinha, Client-server computing, in Communications of the ACM,
`35, 7 (1992)
`1017 Tim Berners-Lee, Robert Cailliau, Ari Luotonen, Henrik Frystyk
`Nielsen, and Arthur Secret, The World-Wide Web,
`Communications
`1018 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
`
`1014
`
`sections.
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`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)
`
`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
`2004 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)
`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)
`2008 Scheduling Order, GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., 2:22-cv-
`07556 (C.D. Cal. issued Feb 14, 2023) (Doc. 62)
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`No. Brief Description
`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)
`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)
`
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`CLAIM LISTING2
`
`
`[1pre]
`
`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.
`
`2 As the Preliminary Response presents the claim listing in its body in fragments
`
`[1a]
`
`[1b]
`
`[1c]
`
`[1d]
`
`[1e]
`
`[1f]
`
`[1g]
`
`[2]
`
`[3]
`
`[4]
`
`[5]
`
`[6]
`
`and grouped by limitation type, rather than in numerical order, all claim limitations
`
`are presented here together so the Panel may easily view them in order and in
`
`context. Patent Owner uses Petitioner’s numbering designation for consistency.
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`
`[7]
`
`[8]
`
`[9pre]
`
`[9a]
`
`[9b]
`
`[9c]
`
`[9d]
`
`[9e]
`
`[9f]
`
`[9g]
`
`[10]
`
`[11]
`
`[12]
`
`Limitation
`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.
`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.
`
`- x -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`
`[13]
`
`[14]
`
`[15]
`
`[16]
`
`Limitation
`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.
`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.
`[17pre] 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,
`[17d] wherein said compiled content is generated in part from execution of
`said application by said server,
`[17e] wherein said compiled content comprises render commands expressed
`in a syntax that is generic to said wireless device, and
`[17f] wherein said custom configuration is applicable to said first and second
`compiled content,
`[17g] 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.
`
`[17a]
`[17b]
`
`[17c]
`
`[18]
`
`[19]
`
`- xi -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`
`[20]
`
`Limitation
`20. A server as described in claim 17 wherein said custom configuration
`comprises configuration information and content specific to said
`application.
`
`- xii -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board should decline to institute Netflix, Inc.’s (“Petitioner’s”) request
`
`for an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,989,715 (“’715 Patent” or “Patent-at-
`
`Issue”). Procedurally, Petitioner is asserting the claims are unpatentable as obvious
`
`over Harris and Hariki, references that will have been considered in a parallel district
`
`court proceeding well before the final written decision in this IPR. As such, this
`
`proceeding is a duplicative additional expense for all constituents rather than a less
`
`expensive alternative to address unpatentability as Congress conceived.
`
`Alternatively, the Panel should decline to institute on the merits. At a high
`
`level, the Patent-at-Issue concerns configuring and rendering a remotely executing
`
`application on a wireless device. However, Hariki is not concerned with this subject
`
`matter, but, instead, teaches a more efficient way of putting together a device “skin”
`
`that changes the look of the entire device environment. The Patent-at-Issue also
`
`claims the remotely executing application generating pages expressed in a syntax
`
`that is “generic”—i.e., not specific to the wireless device type—that Petitioner
`
`concedes Hariki does not disclose, arguing Harris has these features. However,
`
`Harris is centered upon providing device specific and arbitrary—to use Petitioner’s
`
`word—content from a web server to a web browser. Given the disparate nature of
`
`the references and the Patent-at-Issue, the Petitioner takes vague and unreasonable
`
`positions in an attempt to shoehorn the references within the claim scope. This
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`Preliminary Response will now discuss these and other issues that show Petitioner
`
`has failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not that any claim is unpatentable
`
`over Hariki in view of Harris.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE PATENT-AT-ISSUE
`
`A. Family and Priority
`
`The Patent-at-Issue is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,245 filed on
`
`August 1, 2007, as shown below.
`
`
`
`As such, the effective priority date of the Patent-at-Issue is August 1, 2007, and
`
`its patentability should be judged under the pre-AIA statutes.
`
`B. Historical Context
`
`By 2005, people were beginning to “web surf” on their smartphones; however,
`
`the Internet capabilities of existing devices were primitive because phones’ internet
`
`interfaces were designed for low-bandwidth networks. Ex. 2001, 13–14. For
`
`instance, “3G,” launched in Japan by NTT DoCoMo in 2001, only had 2 Mbps data
`
`transferring capabilities on average, which allowed “the ability to surf the internet
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`(basic HTML pages at the time).” Ex. 2002, at 2; see also Pet. 7 (characterizing 3G
`
`as capable of transferring low bandwidth type data, such as “emails and instant
`
`messages”). 3G gave rise to new smartphone form factors, such as the Blackberry
`
`(launched in 2002) shown below.
`
`Image of the BlackBerry 5810, Ex. 2002, at 2.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s “state of the art” references—Carden, Tamura, Young, Graham,
`
`and Henrick, see Pet. 3–4 & n.3—confirm the situation. While Petitioner cites
`
`Carden for the proposition that “well before 2003” users could “experience content
`
`with a large amount of data, such as video and music, on their cellular phones,”
`
`Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1009, 1:17–20), the citation does not support such a contention.
`
`Indeed, Patent Owner can find no discussion in Carden of cellular technology or
`
`users experiencing video and music over such a connection. The closest Carden
`
`comes to such a discussion is its contemplation of non-persistent connections such
`
`as connections via “dial up telephone lines.” Id. 5:65–67.
`
`Tamura validates Carden, saying that while a user could download video or
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`music, “radio base stations d[id] not have enough line or channel capacity for
`
`delivering such rich contents to users’ cellular phones.” Ex. 1008 1:21–24.
`
`Therefore, Tamura proposed that multiple mobile terminals could simultaneously
`
`receive the same content via a shared channel to share bandwidth. Id. 16:56–67.
`
`Likewise, Henrick notes that wireless devices are “unsuitable for transferring
`
`quality media.” Ex. 1012, 1:49–52. Therefore, Henrick proposes allowing a user to
`
`search for content on a wireless device, but sending the content to a “second
`
`device . . . a personal computer owned by the user that is connected to the Internet
`
`via an always-on connection, such as a cable modem.” Id. 2:12–19.
`
`Young and Graham are primarily concerned with non-mobile computers.
`
`Young is simply discussing delivery of software, such as the game “Myst,”
`
`Ex. 1010, 1:16–24, that would run on “personal computers,” id. 9:12–16, and
`
`Graham discusses broadcasting audio/video to a “client 112 [that] represents a
`
`computer, such as a PC compatible computer, running a browser application 102 . . .
`
`[such as] Netscape Navigator,” Ex. 1011, 7:57–60.
`
`“The smartphone market changed radically with the arrival of Apple’s iPhone
`
`in June 2007.” Ex. 2001, 12. The iPhone, shown below, was touted as
`
`“revolutionary” in that it was not just a phone and a music player, but an “Internet
`
`communicator” where the entire user interface of the iPhone was a touchscreen. Id.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`Ex. 2002, at 2–3.
`
`
`
`It was around this time, in August of 2007, that the Patent-in-Suit was filed.
`
`At this moment, the wireless device marketplace offered many different mobile
`
`devices, each with very different hardware-specific attributes. The Panel can view
`
`the variety by perusing the pictures in the first 75 pages of Petitioner’s Exhibit 1014.
`
`Therefore, game manufacturers would provide different versions of games based
`
`upon phone maker, model, and phone capabilities as seen in the Cingular Games
`
`page circa 2006:
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`
`
`Ex. 2003 at 5,7.
`
`While wireless devices were becoming more powerful, such that each device
`
`could run its own applications, interactions with servers were still very limited due
`
`to the primitive browser interfaces that were a legacy of the wireless networks’ low
`
`bandwidths as described above.
`
`Apple would not unveil its software development kit for the iPhone until
`
`March 2008 or launch its App Store until July of that same year. Ex. 2001, at 14. It
`
`was not until November 2007, that Google, T-Mobile, HTC, Qualcomm, and
`
`Motorola announced the formation of the Open Handset Alliance for the
`
`development of the Android operating system, and Google’s own app store, Android
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00757
`
`
`
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`Market, was not announced until August 2008. Id. 15. 4G wireless networks that
`
`had a minimum of 12.5 Mbps bandwidth were not commercially introduced until
`
`2009. Ex. 2002, at 3.
`
`C. Subject Matter
`
`Circa August 1, 2007, wireless devices generally ran “application[s] locally.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:3–5. And there were multiple types of portable wireless devices,
`
`multiple manufacturers of each type of device, multiple models from each
`
`manufacturer, and multiple versions of each model. Id. 1:21–32. Each particular
`
`combination of type, manufacturer, model, and version of a device potentially had
`
`unique “device attributes” (i.e., rendering capability, display resolution, color
`
`capability, display size, etc.). Id. 1:32–36; 11:20–31; 11:43–56.
`
`Therefore, developers that wished to write an application to run on multiple
`
`devices and “fully utilize” each device’s attributes had to tailor versions of the
`
`application per device, building each one “from the ground up.” Id. 1:37–43; 51–
`
`54. Given that providers had to pay to develop, debug, and qualify every version of
`
`an application, id. 1:44–47, many software developers simply chose to limit their
`
`titles to a few platforms, id. 1:62–67.
`
`Additionally, maintenance of an application (i.e., upgrades, updates, and
`
`patches to the code) across target platforms similarly req