Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 1 of 91
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 1 of 91
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 2 of 91
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`Google LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Touchstream Technologies, Inc.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,356,251
`Filing Date: September 26, 2011
`Issue Date: January 15, 2013
`
`____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00795
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 3 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................... 1
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 2
`II.
`III. THE ’251 PATENT ......................................................................................... 3
`A. Overview of the ’251 Patent .................................................................. 3
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 6
`IV. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART ........................................................................ 6
`A. Muthukumarasamy ................................................................................ 6
`B. Hayward .............................................................................................. 11
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 13
`V.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13
`VII. GROUNDS I AND II: MUTHUKUMARASAMY ALONE OR IN
`VIEW OF HAYWARD RENDERS OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ........................................................................................................ 14
`A.
`Summary of Grounds I and II ............................................................. 14
`1.
`Ground I: Muthukumarasamy Would Have Rendered
`Obvious Claims 1-2 and 5-9 ..................................................... 14
`Ground II: Muthukumarasamy and Hayward Would
`Have Rendered Obvious Claims 1-2 and 5-9 ........................... 15
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................... 20
`1.
`Element 1(pre) ........................................................................... 20
`2.
`Element 1(a) .............................................................................. 27
`3.
`Element 1(b) .............................................................................. 31
`4.
`Element 1(c) .............................................................................. 33
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 4 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`5.
`Element 1(d)(i) .......................................................................... 34
`Element 1(d)(ii) ......................................................................... 35
`6.
`Element 1(d)(iii) ........................................................................ 42
`7.
`Element 1(e)(i) .......................................................................... 48
`8.
`Element 1(e)(ii) ......................................................................... 53
`9.
`10. Element 1(f) .............................................................................. 58
`C. Dependent Claims ............................................................................... 64
`1.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 64
`a.
`Element 2(a) - The method of claim 1 including:
`checking, in the server system, the identity of the
`media player identified in the one or more signals
`from the personal computing device .............................. 64
`Element 2(b) - loading an appropriate set of
`protocols or application programming interfaces
`from a library based on the identity of the media
`player .............................................................................. 68
`Element 2(c) - converting the command from the
`personal computing device into corresponding
`code to control the media player..................................... 71
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 71
`2.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 72
`3.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 72
`4.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 72
`5.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 73
`6.
`VIII. DENIAL UNDER § 325(d) IS IMPROPER ................................................. 74
`IX. DENIAL UNDER § 314(a) IS IMPROPER ................................................. 75
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 5 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`
`A.
`
`
`
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`Factor 1: Whether the district court granted a stay or a stay may
`be granted if a proceeding is instituted ............................................... 75
`Factor 2: Proximity of the court’s trial date ........................................ 75
`Factor 3: Investment in the parallel proceeding .................................. 76
`Factor 4: Overlap between issues ........................................................ 77
`Factor 5: Whether the petitioner and the defendant in the
`parallel proceeding are the same party ................................................ 77
`Factor 6: Other circumstances ............................................................. 78
`F.
`X. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 79
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest ........................................................................ 79
`B.
`Related Matters .................................................................................... 79
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information ....................... 80
`XI. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ...................................................................... 80
`XII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 80
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 6 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`3Shape A/S v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`IPR2020-00223, Paper 12 (PTAB May 26, 2020) ............................................. 78
`Acoustic Tech., Inc. v. Itron Networked Sols., Inc.,
`949 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 17
`Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00862, Paper 35 (PTAB Dec. 7, 2021) ............................................... 19
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co.,
`IPR2019-00612, Paper 26 (PTAB July 31, 2020), aff’d,
`859 F. App’x 579 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................... 17
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ................................. 75, 76, 77
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC,
`IPR2020-00156, Paper 10 (PTAB June 15, 2020) ............................................. 76
`AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc.,
`IPR2018-00167, Paper 16 (PTAB May 14, 2019), aff’d,
`825 F. App’x 909 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..............................................................passim
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) ............................................... 74
`Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
`229 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 17
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ. Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00133, Paper 15 (J. Crumbley dissenting) (PTAB May
`15, 2020) ............................................................................................................. 77
`Ex parte Huppenthal,
`No. 2009-010115, 2011 WL 1826813 (B.P.A.I. May 10, 2011)........................ 18
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 7 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`
`In re Fisher,
`427 F.2d 833 (C.C.P.A. 1970) ............................................................................ 18
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC,
`948 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 38
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2019-01251, Paper 7 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) ............................................... 74
`Neenah, Inc. v. Schwendimann,
`IPR2020-00915, Paper 29 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2021) ............ 19Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 13
`Randall Mfg. v. Rea,
`733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 38
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) ................................. 75, 76, 77
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) ............................................... 77
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................... 2, 11
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................. 2, 6
`35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph ............................................................................. 14
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 75
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................. 74, 78
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 8 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`Ex-1001
`Ex-1002
`Ex-1003
`Ex-1004
`Ex-1005
`Ex-1006
`Ex-1007
`Ex-1008
`Ex-1009
`Ex-1010
`
`Ex-1011
`Ex-1012
`Ex-1013
`Ex-1014
`
`Ex-1015
`
`Ex-1016
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,356,251 to Strober (“the ’251 Patent”)
`RESERVED
`’251 Patent Prosecution History (U.S. App. No. 13/245,001)
`RESERVED
`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson (“Bederson”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`RESERVED
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0241699 (“Muthukumarasamy”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,918,812 (“Hayward”)
`Touchstream Technologies, Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction
`Brief, Touchstream Techs., Inc. v. Vizbee, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-6247-
`PGG-KNF (S.D.N.Y., Sep. 4, 2018)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2011/00600998 (“Schwartz”)
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`Touchstream Techs., Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00569-ADA,
`Joint Claim Construction Statement (W.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2022)
`Touchstream Techs., Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00569-ADA,
`Scheduling Order (W.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2021)
`Touchstream Techs., Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00569-ADA,
`Redacted Motion to Transfer Venue (W.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2021)
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 9 of 91
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1, 2, and 5-9 of U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 8,356,251 (“the ’251 Patent”). The claims recite a system that includes a
`
`personal computing device, a server, and a display device. ’251 Patent, Abstract.
`
`When the personal computing device sends a request to the server identifying media
`
`content to play in a media player running on the display device, the server sends a
`
`message to the display device, causing the content to be played by the media player.
`
`Id., 6:30-46. The server mediates the personal computing device’s control of content
`
`presented on the display device. Id., 5:2-31, 6:47-58.
`
`Server-mediated control of content presentation was known before the
`
`earliest-claimed priority date of the ’251 Patent. Muthukumarasamy describes a
`
`system that includes a personal computing device, a server system, and a display
`
`device. Muthukumarasamy, [0044]-[0045]. In Muthukumarasamy, the personal
`
`computing device sends a message to the server system identifying content for
`
`presentation on the display device, and the server system sends a message to the
`
`display device, causing the content to be presented at the display device. Id.
`
`Presentation of content through specified media players was likewise known.
`
`Muthukumarasamy “controls delivery of selected media content and selects and
`
`controls the media devices that deliver the selected media content according to a
`
`media type of the selected media content.” Id., [0048], [0057]-[0058]. Hayward also
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 10 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`presents internet-received media content having different formats using media
`
`players. Hayward, Abstract, 3:53-63. Hayward teaches a media player that is
`
`transferred to a client based on a user’s selection of the media content. Id., 3:53-63,
`
`Abstract, 5:38-66, FIG. 2.
`
`Petitioner requests that the Board institute review and cancel the challenged
`
`claims.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 and cancellation of the
`
`challenged claims in view of the following references, which are prior art under at
`
`least one of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), and (e):
`
`Name
`
`Filing Date
`
`Publication Date
`
`U.S. Pat./Pub.
`Number
`Muthukumarasamy 2010/0241699 A1 March 22, 2010 September
`
`23,
`
`Hayward
`
`8,918,812 B2
`
`October
`
`24,
`
`June 20, 2002
`
`2000
`
`2010
`
`The following proposed obviousness grounds render the challenged claims obvious.
`
`Ground
`
`I
`
`
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Claims
`
`Obvious over Muthukumarasamy
`
`1-2 and 5-9
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 11 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`
`II
`
`Obvious over Muthukumarasamy in view
`of Hayward
`III. THE ’251 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’251 Patent
`The ’251 Patent purports to allow a user to use a personal computing device
`
`1-2 and 5-9
`
`(e.g., smartphone) to control the presentation of content on a display device,
`
`mediated by a server system. ’251 Patent, Abstract, 1:22-39, 2:16-34, 3:56-62; Ex.
`
`1005 (“Bederson”), ¶31.
`
`The computing device, display device, and server system are illustrated in
`
`Figure 1 below.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 12 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 1 (annotated); Bederson, ¶32.
`
`The computing device displays content from various internet sources, and a
`
`user selects content to be presented on the display device. Id., 3:7-15, 3:64-67, 4:23-
`
`27. The computing device sends signals through the server system to cause
`
`presentation of the content at the display device. Id., 3:10-18. The signals sent by the
`
`computing device also specify a particular media player for playing the content. Id.,
`
`4:29-35. The computing device causes different content to be played on the display
`
`device by a plurality of media players. Id., 3:33-36.
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 13 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 2 (annotated); Bederson, ¶33.
`
`The computing device “control[s] how the content is displayed (e.g., play,
`
`pause, stop, rewind, fast forward, etc.)” at the display device. Id., 3:36-39. To this
`
`end, signals from the computing device are passed through the server system to the
`
`display device. Id., 3:39-41. This is because “[v]arious types of [media] players may
`
`use different … commands to control their respective playback.” Id., 5:57-58.
`
`Accordingly, the computing device sends to the server system a universal playback
`
`control command not specific to any media player. Id., 5:58-62. The server system
`
`translates the universal playback control command into the appropriate playback
`
`control command for the media player playing the content and provides this media-
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 14 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`player-specific playback control command to the display device. Id., 5:62-6:3;
`
`Bederson, ¶34-35.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`The patent application that issued as the ’251 Patent (the “Application”), filed
`
`on September 26, 2011, is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,289 (“the ’289
`
`Patent”) filed June 10, 2011, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional App. No.
`
`61/477,998 filed April 21, 2011.1 To avoid rejections over prior art, the Applicant
`
`added additional limitations to claim 1: that the personal computing device is
`
`“separate from the server system and separate from the display device;” that the
`
`display device “loads any one of a plurality of different media player players;” and
`
`that the server system uses a “synchronization code” to “associat[e]” the personal
`
`computing device and the display device. Id., 204, 210-11.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART
`A. Muthukumarasamy
`Muthukumarasamy was filed on March 22, 2010, and published on September
`
`23, 2010, and is prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`Like the ’251 Patent, Muthukumarasamy allows a user to use an internet-
`
`enabled device (“IED”), such as a smartphone, to control the presentation of content,
`
`
`1 Petitioner does not admit the ’251 Patent is entitled to these earlier dates of
`priority, but the Board need not resolve any priority dispute in this case.
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 15 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`including internet content, on a display device. Muthukumarasamy, Abstract,
`
`[0005], [0026], [0031], [0041], [0047]. Just like the ’251 Patent, Muthukumarasamy
`
`provides a “device-agnostic and source-agnostic entertainment experience” in which
`
`the IED controls, through a Device-Based Control System (“DBCS”), the
`
`presentation of content from different sources (Muthukumarasamy, Abstract,
`
`[0005], [0027], [0047], [0134]). The IED, content presentation device, and DBCS
`
`are illustrated in Figure 1 below.
`
`Muthukumarasamy, FIG. 1 (annotated); Bederson, ¶36-37.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 16 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`The IED displays content from various internet sources (see, e.g., FIGs. 2 and
`
`3), and a user selects content to be presented on the display device. Id., [0048].
`
`Signals to control presentation of the content are sent from the IED to the display
`
`device through the DBCS, so the DBCS can translate commands into those specific
`
`to the current content presentation. The IED’s signal is sent to the content
`
`presentation device through a server system, as shown in Figure 1. Id., [0057]-
`
`[0058];Bederson, ¶38.
`
`Muthukumarasamy also describes server-system-mediated control of internet
`
`content presented at a content presentation device. As Figure 18 shows, the DBCS
`
`includes remote-controlled internet browser software (“RCIBS”) that is “optimized
`
`for internet-media consumption.” Id., [0083]. Examples of internet-media platforms
`
`are Netflix and Amazon Video On Demand. Id., [0134].
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 17 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 18 (annotated); Bederson, ¶39.
`
`Muthukumarasamy recognizes that different media players are needed to
`
`present different internet content. As Figure 19 shows, the RCIBS “[p]lay[s] [a]
`
`video at [a] given URL,” and plays a video “using 3rd Party APIs [application
`
`programming interfaces] and Video Players.” The RCIBS must “load[] the 3rd Party
`
`Video Player specified” for the video. Id., FIG. 19.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 18 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 19 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`
`Id., FIG. 19; Bederson, ¶40.
`
`B. Hayward
`Hayward was filed on October 24, 2001, published on June 20, 2002 and
`
`claims priority to a provisional application, filed on Oct. 24, 2000. It is prior art at
`
`least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b); Bederson, ¶41.
`
`Hayward describes the presentation of internet content on a client, such as an
`
`internet-enabled television. Hayward, 3:20-32, 3:35-47. Internet content may take
`
`“a variety of streaming media file formats” and media files must be presented using
`
`an appropriate “media player[].” Id., 1:8-10, 3:56-60, 5:4-47. Hayward’s method
`
`identifies a media player to present internet content on a client and controls media-
`
`player-specific content. Bederson, ¶42.
`
`Presentation of internet content is facilitated by a customer system that
`
`identifies the media player needed to present a media file. Hayward’s customer
`
`system provides the client with “access to a wide variety of information through a
`
`common interface.” Id., 4:15-19. Through the customer system, the client selects a
`
`media file, causing the customer system to provide the client with an “embedded
`
`media player page.” Id., 5:24-28. The embedded media player page includes “a
`
`reference to a functional media player object (such as a RealPlayer plug in).” Id.,
`
`5:38-40, 8:39-41. The reference refers to a memory location on the client or
`
`“trigger[s] a download of a media player applet to control the output of a media file.”
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 20 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`Id., 5:40-47, 6:35-38. Hayward’s content may be in one of “a variety of streaming
`
`media file formats,” and the media player called is the appropriate media player for
`
`playing the media file format, such as the RealPlayer plug in for playing internet
`
`content. Id., 1:8–10, 3:56–60, 5:4–47.
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 1A (annotated); Bederson, ¶43.
`
`Through the embedded media player page, a user can control the presentation
`
`of the media file. Id., 5:63-66. The embedded media player page provides “a play
`
`button, pause button, stop button, slider bar, [or] forward and rewind buttons”
`
`through which the user can control presentation of the media file. Id., 5:66-6:4;
`
`Bederson, ¶44.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 21 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of skill in the art (“POSA”) would have had at least a bachelor’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and
`
`two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with
`
`networked media or media playback systems. Bederson, ¶47. With more education,
`
`for example, postgraduate degrees and/or study, less experience is needed to attain
`
`an ordinary level of skill in the art. Similarly, more experience can substitute for
`
`formal education. Bederson, ¶¶45-49.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Claims should only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve a
`
`controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d
`
`1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Because the prior art renders obvious all limitations of
`
`the challenged claims under any reasonable interpretation, the Board need not
`
`construe any claims to resolve a controversy. See Bederson, ¶50. Moreover,
`
`Touchstream proposed plain and ordinary meaning for all terms in the parallel
`
`district court action, confirming that Patent Owner does not believe any terms of the
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 22 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`’251 Patent require construction. Ex-1014. Petitioner adopts these interpretations for
`
`purposes of this Petition.2
`
`VII. GROUNDS I AND II: MUTHUKUMARASAMY ALONE OR IN VIEW
`OF HAYWARD RENDERS OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`The Challenged Claims are obvious over Muthukumarasamy alone (Ground
`
`I) or in view of Hayward (Ground II). See Bederson, ¶¶50-55.
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Grounds I and II
`1. Ground I: Muthukumarasamy Would Have Rendered
`Obvious Claims 1-2 and 5-9
`Muthukumarasamy provides “a device-agnostic and source-agnostic
`
`entertainment experience.” Muthukumarasamy, [0027]. Muthukumarasamy uses a
`
`DBCS, including a server system, to mediate control by a personal computing device
`
`(IED) of content presented at a display device. Bederson, ¶56.
`
`Muthukumarasamy expressly describes how the DBCS-mediated control can
`
`create a “device-agnostic” experience. The DBCS (e.g., using a zHub and a zNode)
`
`translates universal commands sent by the IED into device-specific commands
`
`
`2 Petitioner reserves the right to propose alternate constructions before the district
`
`court, including assertions of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph
`
`(pre-AIA), which cannot be raised in this Petition.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 23 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`interpretable by the display device. Id., [0057]-[0058], [0066]-[0067]; Bederson,
`
`¶57.
`
`Muthukumarasamy also creates a “source-agnostic” experience when the
`
`source is an internet source. Muthukumarasamy describes presenting content from
`
`various internet sources, and recognizes that, to do so, the RCIBS will need to load
`
`an appropriate “Video Player” for presenting the content on the display device. Id.,
`
`FIG. 19. In particular, Muthukumarasamy teaches that the IED sends commands to
`
`“play[] the video present at [a] given URL” on the internet and the RCIBS “loads
`
`[a] 3rd Party Video Player specified” for the video to “play[] the video.” Id. From
`
`this, a POSA would have understood Muthukumarasamy to achieve source-agnostic
`
`presentation of internet content because one of any number of “Video Player[s]” can
`
`be loaded to present the internet content at the display device, irrespective of its
`
`source. Bederson, ¶58.
`
`2. Ground II: Muthukumarasamy and Hayward Would Have
`Rendered Obvious Claims 1-2 and 5-9
`To the extent that Muthukumarasamy does not expressly teach source-
`
`agnostic presentation of internet content by loading the Video Player on the display
`
`device, Hayward teaches this. In particular, Hayward expressly explains how to
`
`provide source-agnostic presentation of content at a display device through
`
`embedded media player pages. Recognizing that internet content may have “a
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 24 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`variety of streaming media file formats” and media files must be presented using an
`
`appropriate “media player,” Hayward proposes using embedded media player pages
`
`through which internet content is presented at a user’s display device using an
`
`appropriate media player. Hayward, 1:8-10, 3:56-60, 5:4-47. Because the embedded
`
`media player page includes an identification of a selected media file from the internet
`
`together with “a reference to a functional media player object (such as a RealPlayer
`
`plug in),” a display device may present the selected media file in the appropriate
`
`media player, irrespective of the media file’s source. Id., 5:38-47, 8:39-41. Because
`
`the embedded media player facilitates control of the media file’s presentation, a user
`
`of the display device may control the presentation, regardless of the media file’s
`
`source. Id., 5:63-6:4; Bederson, ¶59.
`
`A POSA would have been motivated and found it obvious to implement
`
`Hayward’s embedded media player pages to facilitate the source-agnostic
`
`presentation of internet content that Muthukumarasamy envisions. Bederson, ¶60.
`
`For example, a POSA would have been motivated by and found it obvious from
`
`Hayward to implement the RCIBS to present internet content at the display device
`
`using embedded media player pages, such as those taught by Hayward. Id.
`
`Muthukumarasamy’s DBCS enables a user to browse “web-based merchant stores”
`
`and make “purchases from web-based merchants.” Muthukumarasamy, [0138].
`
`Muthukumarasamy’s RCIBS discloses using “3rd party APIs and Video Players,”
`
`16
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 25 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`including Adobe Flash, a well-known web-based player. Id., FIG. 19. A POSA
`
`would have looked to web-based, embedded media player references, such as
`
`Hayward, for implementation details. Id.; Bederson, ¶60.
`
`A POSA implementing Muthukumarasamy would have been motivated by
`
`Muthukumarasamy’s stated goal to provide source-agnostic content presentation at
`
`the display device. Muthukumarasamy, [0027]; Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
`
`v. Philip Morris, Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (evidence of a
`
`motivation to combine “may flow from the prior art references themselves”). The
`
`POSA would have recognized from Hayward that embedded media player pages,
`
`which allow a display device to seamlessly present media files having a variety of
`
`file formats through a variety of media players, are a tool to provide such source-
`
`agnostic content presentation. Hayward, 1:8-10, 3:56-60, 5:4-47. Bederson, ¶61.
`
`See, e.g., Acoustic Tech., Inc. v. Itron Networked Sols., Inc., 949 F.3d 1366, 1376
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding that a POSA would have been motivated to use a secondary
`
`reference’s technique that was “‘well known’ among skilled artisans as a way to
`
`achieve [the] goals” stated in the primary reference (citation omitted)); Apple Inc. v.
`
`Firstface Co., IPR2019-00612, Paper 26 at 31-36 (PTAB July 31, 2020) (finding a
`
`POSA would have been motivated to implement a primary reference using a
`
`technique described in a secondary reference “to fulfill [the primary reference’s]
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-3 Filed 04/20/23 Page 26 of 91
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`goal,” citing the primary reference’s “express motivation” (citation omitted)), aff’d,
`
`859 F. App’x 579 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`
`Embedded media player pages were widely used and implemented using well-
`
`known technologies at the time of the ’251 Patent, for example, by using JavaScript
`
`as Hayward discloses. Bederson, ¶62. A POSA would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in implementing such a widely known and commonly used
`
`feature within Muthukumarasamy. Id. Muthukumarasamy itself discloses using
`
`web-based embedded media players, such as Flash (Muthukumarasamy, FIG. 19),
`
`which Hayward also discloses as one possible media player (Hayward, 3:53-63).
`
`Because of this overlapping disclosure, a POSA would have found the two
`
`references compatible and had a reasonable expectation of success in combining
`
`them. Bederson, ¶62. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (identifying
`
`electrical elements as being predictable); Ex parte Huppenthal, No. 2009-010115,
`
`2011 WL 1826813, at *4 (B.P.A.I. May 10, 2011) (“we find the claimed invention
`
`is within a predictable art,” regarding a computer networking patent application);
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[W]hen a patent ʻsimply
`
`arranges old elements with each perfo