UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,048,751
`Filing Date: August 25, 2017
`Issue Date: June 29, 2021
`Title: PLAY CONTROL OF CONTENT ON A DISPLAY DEVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2024-00323
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................................ i
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II.
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 1
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’751 PATENT ............................................................ 1
`A.
`Brief Description .................................................................................. 1
`B.
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 4
`C.
`Earliest Priority Date for the Claims..................................................... 5
`IV. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART ....................................................................... 6
`A.
`Redford ................................................................................................. 6
`B. Gonze .................................................................................................... 7
`C.
`Bartfeld ................................................................................................. 8
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b) ...................................................................................................... 8
`A.
`Claims for Which Review is Requested and Grounds on Which
`Challenge Is Based ............................................................................... 8
`314(a) Discretion Does Not Apply ....................................................... 9
`B.
`325(d) Discretion Does Not Apply ..................................................... 10
`C.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ....................................................................... 10
`D.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 11
`E.
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY .................................. 12
`A. Grounds A and B: Redford-Bartfeld and Redford-Bartfeld-Gonze
`Render Claims 1-20 Obvious .............................................................. 12
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 12
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 36
`3.
`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................... 36
`4.
`Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................... 37
`5.
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................... 38
`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................... 40
`6.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 41
`7.
`Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................... 42
`8.
`Dependent Claim 9 ................................................................... 43
`9.
`10. Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................. 44
`11. Dependent Claim 11 ................................................................. 44
`12.
`Independent Claim 12 ............................................................... 47
`13. Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................. 49
`14. Dependent Claim 14 ................................................................. 49
`15. Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................. 50
`16. Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................. 51
`17.
`Independent Claim 17 ............................................................... 52
`18. Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................. 54
`19. Dependent Claim 19 ................................................................. 55
`20. Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................. 55
`VII. GROUNDS FOR STANDING & FEE PAYMENT ..................................... 55
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 56
`CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 CFR § 42.24(d) ..................................................... 57
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 58
`CLAIM LISTING APPENDIX ............................................................................... 59
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Ex. 1001:
`Ex. 1002:
`Ex. 1003:
`Ex. 1004:
`Ex. 1005:
`Ex. 1006:
`Ex. 1007-17:
`Ex. 1018:
`
`Ex. 1019:
`Ex. 1020:
`
`Ex. 1021:
`
`Ex. 1022:
`
`Ex. 1023-29:
`Ex. 1030:
`
`Ex. 1031:
`
`Ex. 1032:
`
`Ex. 1033:
`
`Ex. 1034:
`
`Ex. 1035:
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,048,751 (“the ʼ751 Patent”)
`Expert Declaration of David B. Lett
`CV of David Lett
`Certified Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 11,048,751
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,660,545 (“Redford”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0235588 (“Gonze”)
`Reserved
`U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0107299 (“Bartfeld”)
`Reserved
`Joint Claim Construction Statement, Touchstream
`Technologies, Inc. v. Google LLC, 6:21-cv-00569-ADA
`(WDTX) (Feb. 8, 2022)
`Exhibit 1 to Joint Disputed Claim Terms Charts, Touchstream
`Technologies, Inc. v. Vizbee, Inc., 1:17-cv-06247-PGG-KNF
`(SDNY) (Aug. 6, 2018)
`Jury Instructions, Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Google
`LLC, 6:21-cv-00569-ADA (WDTX) (July 21, 2023)
`Reserved
`U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0104096 (“Cramer”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,356,575 (“Shapiro”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,842 (“Estipona”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0267899 (“Rahman”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0098533 (“Henshaw”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0172656 (“Kim”)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`Ex. 1036:
`
`Ex. 1037:
`Ex. 1038-40:
`Ex. 1041:
`
`Ex. 1042:
`
`Ex. 1043:
`
`Ex. 1044:
`
`Ex. 1045:
`
`Ex. 1046:
`
`Ex. 1047:
`
`Ex. 1048:
`
`Reserved
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,343,419 (“Robinson”)
`Reserved
`CODING OF MOVING PICTURES AND AUDIO, MPEG-4 Overview
`(Int’l Org. Standardisation 2002)
`ROBERT GODWIN-JONES, DIGITAL VIDEO UPDATE: YOUTUBE,
`FLASH, HIGH-DEFINITION, 11 LANGUAGE LEARNING &
`TECH. 16, 17 (2007)
`John C. Paolillo et al., A Network View of Social Media
`Platform History: Social Structure, Dynamics and Content on
`YouTube, PROC. 52ND HAWAII INT’L CONF. ON SYS. SCIS., 1,
`(2019)
`
`YouTube Opens Internet Video to Masses; Serving 3 Million
`Videos Daily and Growing, YouTube Unveils a Fast, Fun, and
`Easy Service for Consumers to Broadcast Original Video,
`MARKET WIRE, Dec. 15, 2005
`
`Hulu Debuts via Private Beta and on Distribution Partners
`AOL, Comcast, MSN, MySpace and Yahoo!; Company
`Announces Major Licensing Deals with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
`Studios Inc. and Sony Pictures Television; Providence Equity
`Partners Makes Strategic Investment in News
`Corporation/NBC Universal Online Video Joint Venture, BUS.
`WIRE, Oct. 29, 2007
`Blockbuster Offers Cheaper Online Rental, ASSOCIATED PRESS,
`Jun. 13, 2007
`
`Adobe Delivers Flash Player 9 With H.264 Video Support; HD
`Quality Web Video and Audio Now Available With Adobe Flash
`Player Update, BUS. WIRE, Dec. 4, 2007
`
`Microsoft Unveils Silverlight to Power the Next Generation of
`Media Experiences on the Web; Leading Media Companies and
`Solution Providers Announce Support for New Solution for
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Ex. 1049:
`
`Ex. 1050:
`
`Ex. 1051:
`
`Ex. 1052:
`
`Ex. 1053:
`
`Ex. 1054:
`
`Ex. 1055:
`
`Ex. 1056:
`
`Ex. 1057:
`
`Ex. 1058:
`
`Ex. 1059:
`
`Video and Interactivity on Mac- and Windows-Based Web
`Browsers, PR NEWSWIRE US, Apr. 16, 2007
`
`Former Apple Multimedia Pioneers Unveil WebTV; New
`Company Brings Internet to Television Viewers, PR
`NEWSWIRE, Jun. 12, 1996
`Netflix, TiVo Team Up After 4-Year Courtship, ASSOCIATED
`PRESS, Oct. 30, 2008
`
`TiVo and Amazon.com Announce New Service Enabling
`Amazon Unbox Video Download to TiVo; TiVo Subscribers
`Will Soon Be Able to Watch Amazon Unbox Movies and TV
`Shows on Their TVs, BUS. WIRE, Feb. 7, 2007
`Wall Crumbling Between Televisions and Computers, AGENCE
`FRANCE PRESSE – ENGLISH, Jan. 8, 2009
`ENHANCED TV BINARY INTERCHANGE FORMAT 1.0, ETV
`(OpenCable Specifications, Nov. 25, 2009)
`
`Award-Winning Sonos™ Digital Music System Begins Shipping
`to Customers, PR NEWSWIRE US, Jan. 27, 2005
`Sonos Introduces the Sonos™ ZonePlayer ZP80, PR
`NEWSWIRE, Jan. 4, 2006
`
`Sonos Introduces the Sonos Controller for iPhone; Free
`Application Lets Music Lovers Control Leading Multi- Room
`Music System from Their iPhone, PR NEWSWIRE, Oct. 28, 2008
`AT&T Opens R&D Lab in Cambridge, England, BUS. WIRE,
`Feb. 10, 1999
`Microsoft Releases Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server Edition,
`M2 PRESSWIRE, Jun 16, 1998
`
`TeamViewer: TeamViewer 3.0 Beta Published; Next
`Generation of the Popular Remote Support Software, M2
`PRESSWIRE, Aug. 27, 2007
`
`v
`
`

`

`Ex. 1060:
`
`Ex. 1061:
`
`Ex. 1062:
`
`Ex. 1063:
`
`Ex. 1064:
`Ex. 1065:
`Ex. 1066:
`Ex. 1067:
`
`Ex. 1068:
`
`Ex. 1069:
`Ex. 1070:
`Ex. 1071:
`Ex. 1072:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1073-81:
`Ex. 1082:
`
`3am Labs Announces $10 Million Series A Financing;
`McNamee Lawrence & Co. Acts as Exclusive Financial Advisor
`to 3am Labs, BUS. WIRE, Nov. 16, 2004
`
`Expertcity's GoToMyPC Product Wins A People's Choice
`Award At Upside Events' Showcase 2001, INTERNET WIRE, Feb.
`1, 2001
`
`TV2Me(R) Goes Global By Partnering With Leading Asian
`Online Entertainment Company; Manila-Based ESL Adds Sales
`and Marketing Muscle to Bring Pioneering Place Shifting
`Technology to Wider Market, PR NEWSWIRE US, May 16, 2006
`
`CES Innovations 2005 Award and Red Herring Finalist for 100
`Most Innovative Companies are Latest Commendations for
`Sling Media, BUS. WIRE, Nov. 11, 2004
`Final Written Decision, IPR2022-00795 (Sep. 27, 2023)
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2022-00795 (Jan. 13, 2023)
`Reserved
`
`Progressive Networks Launches the First Commercial Audio-
`On-Demand System Over the Internet, BUS. WIRE, Apr. 10,
`1995
`
`Progressive Networks’ RealVideo Launched With Wide
`Industry Support, PR NEWSWIRE EUROPE, February 10, 1997
`Reserved
`U.S. Pat. Application No. 61/477,998
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,904,289 to Strober (“the ’289 Patent”)
`Certified Copy of Prosecution History of U.S. Pat No.
`8,904,289
`Reserved
`Stipulation Regarding Invalidity Defenses
`
`vi
`
`

`

`MANDATORY NOTICES
`Real Parties in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real parties-in-interest for this petition are (i) Comcast Cable
`
`Communications, LLC and (ii) Comcast Corporation.
`
`No unnamed entity is funding, controlling, or directing this Petition for inter
`
`partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 11,048,751 (“the ’751 Patent”), or otherwise
`
`has an opportunity to control or direct this Petition or Petitioner’s participation in
`
`any resulting IPR.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ’751 Patent, along with related U.S. Patent Nos. 8,356,251 (“the ’251
`
`Patent”) and 11,086,934 (“the ’934 Patent”), is being asserted against Comcast Cable
`
`Communications, LLC, d/b/a Xfinity, Comcast Cable Communications
`
`Management, LLC, and Comcast of Houston, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas
`
`in Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC d/b/a
`
`Xfinity et al., 2:23-cv-00062-JRG (“EDTX Litigation”). The earliest date of service
`
`on the Comcast entities named in the EDTX Litigation was March 1, 2023, however
`
`the ’751 and ’934 Patents were first asserted in a First Amended Complaint served
`
`on May 25, 2023.
`
`The ’751, ’251, and ’934 Patents are also presently being asserted against
`
`Charter Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Operating, LLC, Spectrum
`
`i
`
`

`

`Management Holding Company, LLC, Time Warner Cable Enterprises, LLC, and
`
`Spectrum Gulf Coast, LLC in Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Charter
`
`Communications, Inc. et al, 2:23-cv-00059-JRG (EDTX); and against Altice USA,
`
`Inc., Cequel Communications, LLC, CSC Holdings, LLC, and Friendship Cable of
`
`Texas, Inc. in Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Altice USA, Inc. et al, 2:23-cv-
`
`00060-JRG (EDTX).
`
`The ’251 Patent is also presently being asserted against Google LLC in
`
`Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Google LLC, 6:21-cv-00569-ADA (WDTX)
`
`along with related U.S. Patent Nos. 8,782,528 (“the ’528 Patent”) and 8,904,289
`
`(“the ’289 Patent”). The ’251, ’528, and ’289 Patents were the subject of requests
`
`for inter partes review filed by Google LLC in IPR2022-00795, IPR2022-00793,
`
`and IPR2022-00794 (presently on appeal). The real parties-in-interest in this
`
`Petition are not involved in those IPRs. The ’251, ’528, and ’289 Patents were
`
`previously asserted against Vizbee, Inc. in Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v.
`
`Vizbee, Inc., 1:17-cv-06247-PGG-KNF (SDNY) which was terminated by stipulated
`
`dismissal on January 24, 2020.
`
`According to the Office’s records, the ’751 Patent is a continuation of U.S.
`
`Pat. App. No. 13/532,546, filed June 25, 2012 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,767,195)
`
`which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Pat. App. No. 13/157,821, filed June 10, 2011
`
`ii
`
`

`

`(issued as the ’289 Patent), which claims priority to Provisional App. No.
`
`61/477,998, filed April 21, 2011.
`
`No prior petitions for inter partes review, post-grant review, or covered
`
`business method review have been filed against the ’751 Patent.
`
`This is the first of two petitions for inter partes review filed by Petitioner
`
`against the ’751 Patent. Petitioner is also filing petitions for inter partes review
`
`against the related ’251 and ’934 Patents.
`
`
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Petitioner designates counsel listed below. A power of attorney for counsel
`
`is being concurrently filed.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Lead Counsel
`Frederic M. Meeker (Reg. No. 35,282)
`fmeeker@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
`1100 13th Street, NW
`Suite 1200
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 824-3000
`Fax: (202) 824-3001
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Paul T. Qualey (Reg. No. 45,027)
`pqualey@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`John R. Hutchins (Reg. No. 43,686)
`jhutchins@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`John Fleming (Reg. No. 56,536)
`jfleming@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`Joshua L. Davenport (Reg. No. 72,756)
`jdavenport@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
`1100 13th Street, NW
`Suite 1200
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 824-3000
`Fax: (202) 824-3001
`
`Please address all correspondence to counsel at this address shown above.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at the following address and the
`
`above emails: ComcastIPRService@bannerwitcoff.com.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Petitioner”) petitions for inter partes
`
`review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,048,751 (“the ’751
`
`Patent”).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`The ’751 Patent claims methods for translating commands among associated
`
`devices to control media. The methods use a display device for presenting video
`
`content using one of a plurality of media players controlled via messages transmitted
`
`from a computing device to a server, converted into commands appropriate for the
`
`selected media player to control playing of the video content, and then transmitted
`
`to the display device. The display device is associated with the computing device
`
`by a synchronization code and stored in the server.
`
`These features and additional features of the ’751 Patent claims are disclosed
`
`or rendered obvious by the prior art, e.g., Ex. 1005, Redford, and other references
`
`relied on herein. Accordingly, as set forth below, claims 1-20 of the ’751 Patent are
`
`unpatentable and should be cancelled.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’751 PATENT
` Brief Description
`The ’751 Patent describes a system 10 for using a server system 24 (green) to
`
`facilitate a connection between a personal computing device 20 (blue) for selecting
`
`1
`
`

`

`content, and a television/display device 22 (red) for displaying the selected content.
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:13-36; Ex. 1002, ¶ 41.
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 1 (annotated)
`
`
`
`The connection between the personal computing device (e.g., a mobile phone)
`
`and the display device may be established by the user selecting from a list of devices
`
`displayed on the mobile phone’s screen or alternatively the user can enter a
`
`synchronization code on the mobile phone that is uniquely associated with the
`
`display device. Ex. 1001, 5:25-33. The synchronization code can be obtained from,
`
`2
`
`

`

`for example, a text displayed on the screen of the display device. Id., 5:33-40. The
`
`server system may then store the association between the personal computing device
`
`and display device. Id., 5:5-24, 5:47-58. Ex. 1002, ¶ 42.
`
`When a user selects particular content on the mobile phone, a message is
`
`formatted and transmitted to the server which contains information identifying the
`
`user, the display device, the selected video content, the media player for the selected
`
`video, and the action to be taken (e.g., play, pause, rewind). Id., 4:39-55. The
`
`message is received by the server and the information is stored in a database. Id.,
`
`4:56-5:4. The server then confirms a connection between the personal computing
`
`device and display device, and copies the message information to a database
`
`associated with the display device. Id., 5:59-6:4. The server also identifies the
`
`media player requested in the message and converts the commands from the personal
`
`computing device into the correct code for use on the display device to control the
`
`media player. Id., 6:4-37. The information in the database associated with the
`
`display device is then transmitted to, or retrieved by, the display device. Id., 6:38-
`
`48. The display device then acts on the message information by, for example,
`
`loading the requested media player, obtaining the selected video content file, and
`
`playing the video. Id., 6:49-7:3. After the video is playing on the display device,
`
`the user may further control the playing by entering commands through the mobile
`
`3
`
`

`

`phone and transmitted through the server as described above. Id., 7:4-15. Ex. 1002,
`
`¶ 42.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The application that led to the ’751 Patent, U.S. Application No. 15/687,249,
`
`was filed on August 25, 2017 with 20 claims including independent claims 1, 12,
`
`and 17. Ex. 1004, p. 1-51.
`
`All claims were rejected in an Office Action dated January 8, 2019 as
`
`anticipated by U.S. Published Application 2012/0130971 to Morris or as obvious
`
`over Morris in view of U.S. Published Application 2009/0248802 to Mahajan. Id.,
`
`p. 63-74. In a response dated May 9, 2019, Applicant argued that neither Morris nor
`
`Mahajan disclose “a first message that includes at least one command in a first
`
`format, wherein the first message is received based at least in part on a second
`
`message including at least one command in a second format.” Id., p. 168-173. Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 56.
`
`In a Final Office Action dated June 12, 2019, the rejections of all claims in
`
`view of Morris or Morris-Mahajan was maintained. Id., pp. 176–190. An interview
`
`was held on June 25, 2019 but no agreement was reached. Id., pp. 212–216. In an
`
`Amendment dated December 12, 2019, Applicant amended the claims to require,
`
`among other things, a synchronization code associating a first and second computing
`
`4
`
`

`

`devices, and that the media player be selected from a plurality of media players. Id.,
`
`pp. 234–241. Ex. 1002, ¶ 57.
`
`A Notice of Allowance was issued on April 2, 2020. Id., p. 493. The issue
`
`fee was paid on June 30, 2020. Id., pp. 548-553. However, a Petition to Withdraw
`
`from Issue was filed July 22, 2020 along with an Information Disclosure Statement
`
`(IDS) containing additional prior art. Id., pp. 555–565; Ex. 1002, ¶ 58. Another
`
`Notice of Allowance was issued September 3, 2020. Id., p. 684. Another Petition
`
`to Withdraw from Issue with an IDS was filed on September 3, 2020. Id., pp. 698–
`
`703; Ex. 1002, ¶ 59.
`
`Claims 1, 12 and 17 were rejected in an Office Action dated February 2, 2021
`
`as unpatentable for nonstatutory double patenting over co-pending application
`
`16/917,095 (which eventually issued as the ’934 Patent). Ex. 1004, pp. 744-752.
`
`Applicant filed a Terminal Disclaimer on March 31, 2021. Id., p. 826. A Notice of
`
`Allowance was issued on May 26, 2021. Id., p. 844. The ’751 Patent issued on June
`
`29, 2021. Ex. 1001, cover.
`
` Earliest Priority Date for the Claims
`The earliest possible priority date for the claims of the ’751 Patent is April 21,
`
`2011, the filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/477,998 to which the
`
`’751 Patent claims priority. Ex. 1002, ¶ 34. Each of the references relied on herein
`
`is prior art to that date as explained below.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IV. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART
` Redford
`Redford, U.S. Patent No. 8,660,545 (Ex. 1005), issued on an application filed
`
`on January 6, 2010, and is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`79.
`
`Redford discloses a computer system 250 (green) including various video
`
`content provider computers 281A-281N and a computer 282 that authorizes transfer
`
`of video based on a user’s request. Ex. 1005, 2:59-67, Fig. 2B; Ex. 1002, ¶ 80.
`
`Computer system 250 responds to requests from a handheld device 200 (blue) by
`
`sending a signal carrying user-selected video, for presentation, to an internet-enabled
`
`television 303 (red). Ex. 1005, 6:40-52, 11:37-12:12, 21:20-30, 22:5-46, Figs. 2B,
`
`3A-3C, 6A-6B, 8A-8B, 11A; see Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 80-97.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005, Fig. 3A (annotated)
`
`
`
` Gonze
`Gonze, U.S. Publication No. 2008/0235588 (Ex. 1006), published on
`
`September 25, 2008, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Ex. 1002, ¶ 98.
`
`Gonze discloses a system for making content available from multiple
`
`providers such that a playback device can request, receive, and present the content
`
`7
`
`

`

`utilizing a playlist and a consistent user interface. Ex. 1006, Abstract, [0009]-[0010],
`
`[0034]-[0035], [0040], [0049], [0051], [0056], [0060]. Gonze describes that a
`
`browser and/or an operating system (OS) may use information from a file, for
`
`example, the file extension, to determine software to be loaded to play the file. See
`
`Ex. 1006, [0035]. The browser may determine whether the selected file can be
`
`played by any plug-ins. Id.; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 99-106.
`
` Bartfeld
`Bartfeld, U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0107299 (Ex. 1018), published on May 18,
`
`2006, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Ex. 1002, ¶ 107.
`
`Bartfeld discloses a system for user-assisted association between a television
`
`and a telephony device. Ex. 1018, Abstract. A server generates a code, associates it
`
`with a set-top address, and transmits it back to the STB. Id. The STB displays the
`
`code on a television. Id., [0007], [0025]-[0026]; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 108-112.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)
` Claims for Which Review is Requested and Grounds on Which
`Challenge Is Based
`Petitioner requests review of claims 1–20 on the following grounds.
`
`Ground
`
`References
`
`A
`
`B
`
`Redford-Bartfeld
`
`Redford-Bartfeld-Gonze
`
`Basis
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`1-8, 11-20
`
`1-20
`
`8
`
`

`

`None of the prior art listed in the table above was before the examiner during
`
`prosecution of the ’751 Patent.
`
`314(a) Discretion Does Not Apply
`
`The Fintiv factors as set forth in the Director’s June 21, 2022 Guidance
`
`Memorandum do not warrant discretionary denial.
`
`Factor one appears neutral. Petitioner has filed IPR petitions challenging all
`
`three patents asserted in the District Court. If trial is instituted, Petitioner expects to
`
`request a stay, as decisions in Petitioner’s favor would resolve the dispute in its
`
`entirety.
`
`Factor two does not warrant denial. The District Court case against Petitioner
`
`is consolidated with the cases against Charter and Altice with the Altice case
`
`designated as the lead case. Trial in all three cases is set for October 28, 2024;
`
`Petitioner’s trial will occur on or after that date. Furthermore, motions to transfer
`
`are awaiting ruling.
`
`Factor three does not warrant denial. The District Court has not yet begun the
`
`claim construction process and fact discovery does not close until June 2024.
`
`Factor four strongly favors institution. The petition challenges all claims in
`
`the ’751 Patent while only claims 12-14 and 16 are asserted in the District Court.
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner stipulates not to pursue in the District Court any ground that
`
`9
`
`

`

`utilizes the same combination of prior art references relied upon in the instituted
`
`petition. Ex. 1082.
`
`Factor five does not warrant denial as Petitioner is a defendant in the District
`
`Court case.
`
`Factor six favors institution. Petitioner presents compelling unpatentability
`
`challenges that merit institution, relying on entirely different prior art than that of
`
`the previously-considered Google petition.
`
`325(d) Discretion Does Not Apply
`
`The Board should not exercise its 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) discretion to deny
`
`institution. The grounds raised herein are not the same or substantially the same as
`
`the art and arguments raised during prosecution, and if they are, Examiner erred in
`
`a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims.
`
` Level of Ordinary Skill
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention would have had a degree in computer or electrical engineering, computer
`
`science, information systems, or a similar discipline, along with three-to-four years
`
`of experience with the design and/or implementation of network-based content
`
`delivery systems, such as video-on-demand cable systems and Internet video
`
`streaming. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 30-32.
`
`10
`
`

`

` Claim Construction
`For purposes of this petition only, all claim terms herein are given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning to a POSITA. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner
`
`does not contend that the claims include any means-plus-function limitations. No
`
`terms need be specifically construed in order to resolve any controversy in the instant
`
`Petition. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only
`
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). Petitioner does not contend
`
`that the claims include any means-plus-function limitations.
`
`In the Touchstream-Google case involving the ’251 Patent, Patent Owner
`
`advocated that plain and ordinary meaning applies for all claim terms1, and the Court
`
`agreed. Ex. 1020, pp. 2-4; Ex. 1022, p. 22. In the earlier Touchstream-Vizbee case
`
`involving the same patents, Patent Owner advocated that plain and ordinary meaning
`
`applies for certain claim terms but for other terms proposed constructions which it
`
`seems to have now abandoned. Ex. 1021, pp. 1-14.
`
`In IPR2022-00795, involving the related ’251 Patent, the Board noted that
`
`“the parties agree that the term ‘media player’ refers to software and not to a
`
`
`
`1 For some terms, Patent Owner provided its view as to what that meaning is.
`
`11
`
`

`

`hardware device.” See Ex. 1064, 13. The prior art relied on herein includes software
`
`media players.
`
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
` Grounds A and B: Redford-Bartfeld and Redford-Bartfeld-Gonze
`Render Claims 1-20 Obvious
`Independent Claim 1
`1.
`[1A]: “A non-transitory computer storage medium
`a.
`storing computer-useable instructions that, when used
`by a first computing device, cause the first computing
`device to perform operations comprising:”
`If limiting, Redford discloses it. Redford discloses a computer system 250
`
`(green) including various video content provider computers 281A-281N and
`
`a computer 282 that authorizes transfer of video. Ex. 1005, 2:59-67, 5:28-41, Fig.
`
`2B; Ex. 1002, ¶ 120. Computer system 250 responds to requests 301 from a handheld
`
`device 200 (blue) by sending a signal carrying user-selected video 302, for
`
`presentation, to an internet-enabled television 303 (red) (e.g., “first computing
`
`device”). Ex. 1005, 6:40-52, 7:27-51, 11:37-12:12, 21:20-30, 22:5-46, Figs. 2B, 3A-
`
`3C, 6A-6B, 8A-8B, 11A; Ex. 1002, ¶ 121.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005, Fig. 3A (annotated)
`
`
`
`Television 303 is a computing device that includes a microcontroller 901 and
`
`processor 911 for executing program instructions stored on a non-transitory storage
`
`medium (e.g., ROM, RAM 902 or flash 903) to perform operations. Ex. 1005, 12:5-
`
`12, 30:23-61, FIGs. 9A-9B; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 122-123.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 9A
`
`Redford discloses limitation [1A].
`
`b.
`
`[1B] “obtaining a synchronization code associated with
`the first computing device, wherein the associated
`synchronization code is stored on a remote server
`device;”
`Redford discloses that server 282 of computer system 250 (“remote server
`
`device”) receives, from a television 303, registration information including an IP
`
`address, TV-name, and TV-password (each a “synchronization code”). Ex. 1005,
`
`31:7-14, 44:44-48. The registration process is illustrated in Fig. 11B. Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`126. Server 282 receives a connection request from television 303, checks if a record
`
`exists in a database for television 303, and if not, creates a new record in the database
`
`using the registration information, shown in annotated Fig. 11B below. Server 282
`
`14
`
`

`

`marks television 303 as being available. Ex. 1005., 35:25-36, Fig. 11B; Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`127.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 11B (annotated)
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to modify Redford’s television 303 to include the
`
`claimed capability that television 303 obtain a synchronization code from computer
`
`system 250 as would have been understood by a POSITA as demonstrated by
`
`Bartfeld. Ex. 1002, ¶ 128.
`
`Bartfeld discloses a system for user assisted association between a television
`
`and a telephony device. Ex. 1018, Abstract. Bartfeld describes that a server generates
`
`a code, associates the code with a set-top address, and transmits the code back to the
`
`set-top box. Id. The set-top box displays the code on a television. Id., [0007], [0025]-
`
`[0026]. Using a personal computing device having an address associated therewith,
`
`15
`
`

`

`the code is transmitted by a user, to the server. Id. The server identifies the personal
`
`computing device address, and using the code, associates the device with the set-top
`
`box. Id. Bartfeld discloses that a synchronization code “may be selected by any
`
`convenient manner such as random number generation, selection from a list, hashing
`
`the STB number, using a counter, and the like … Clearly, a never repeating
`
`[synchronization code] may be used.” Ex. 1018, [0025]. Accordingly, Bartfeld’s
`
`set-top box “obtains” “a synchronization code associated with the first computing
`
`device.” Ex. 1002, ¶ 129.
`
`Using Bartfeld, a POSITA would have understood that a server system, such
`
`as computer system 250 of Redford, would beneficially assign a synchronization
`
`code to a first computing device, such as Redford’s television 303 because Bartfeld
`
`describes that a set-top box, to be associated with a handheld computing device, may
`
`be embedded within a device capable of displaying video signals, e.g., Redford’s
`
`television 303. Ex. 1018, [0005], [0030]. Ex. 1002, ¶ 130. A POSITA would further
`
`have understood that Redford-Bartfeld’s computer system 250 generates a
`
`synchronization code that is obtained by and displayed on television 303. Ex. 1018,
`
`Abstract, [0007], [0025]-[0026], Figs. 1, 2, 4; Ex. 1002, ¶ 130. A POSITA would
`
`have looked to supplement the association in Redford with the server generated code
`
`for obtaining by and display on a television and entry by a user on a handheld device
`
`as taught by Bartfeld in order to ensure that the user is easily and accurately
`
`16
`
`

`

`associating the handheld device with a desired television, e.g., basement television.
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 130.
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to do so to easily provide more display
`
`options for playing back content to Redford’s users. Ex. 1002, ¶ 131. Redford
`
`already uniquely identifies displays, and lets a user play