Trialsuspta gov
`571-I7822.
`
`Paper 60
`Entered: January 24, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`STRATOSAUDIO,INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, HYUN J. JUNG, and KEVIN C. TROCK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background and Summary
`
`Petitioner Volkswagen Group of America,Inc.filed a Petition
`
`(Paper1, “Pet.”) requesting interpartes review of claims 11 and 15—18 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,903,307 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the 307 patent’) pursuant to
`
`
`571-I7822.
`
`Paper 60
`Entered: January 24, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`STRATOSAUDIO,INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, HYUN J. JUNG, and KEVIN C. TROCK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background and Summary
`
`Petitioner Volkswagen Group of America,Inc.filed a Petition
`
`(Paper1, “Pet.”) requesting interpartes review of claims 11 and 15—18 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,903,307 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the 307 patent’) pursuant to
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`35 U.S.C. §311(a). On October 25, 2021, we instituted an interpartes
`
`review asto all challenged claimsonall grounds ofunpatentability asserted
`
`in the Petition. Paper 16 (“Decision onInstitution” or “Dec. on Inst.”).
`
`Patent OwnerStratosAudio,Inc. filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 28,
`
`“PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 33, “Reply”’), and Patent Owner
`
`filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 37, “Sur-Reply”’). A combined oral hearing with
`
`Case IPR2021-00716 was held on July 21, 2022, and a transcript of the
`
`hearing is included in the record (Paper 49, “Tr.”).
`
`Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Subaru ofAmerica, Inc., and
`
`Volvo Car USA, LLC filed a motion forjoinder anda petition in
`
`Case IPR2022-00205, which were granted, and, therefore, were joined as
`
`petitioners in this proceeding. Paper36. We adjusted the time of pendency
`
`in this proceeding beyondoneyearafter institution due to jomnder. Paper 55.
`
`The proceeding was terminated as to Mazda Motor ofAmerica,Inc.
`
`and Volvo Car USA, LLC. See Papers 48, 54. In an Order entered
`
`concurrently with this Decision, the proceedingalso 1s terminated as to
`
`Subaru of America, Inc.
`
`We havejurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §318(a). For the reasonsthat
`
`follow, we determine that Petitioner has shownby a preponderanceofthe
`
`evidence that claims 11 and 15-18 of the ’307 patent are unpatentable.
`
`B. RelatedMatters
`
`Theparties indicate that the 307 patentis the subject of the following
`
`pendingdistrict court cases: StratosAudio, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of
`
`America, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-10524 (E.D. Mich.), and StratosAudio, Inc.
`
`v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 2:22-cv-01712 (C.D. Cal.). See Pet. 1;
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`Paper 5, 1; Paper 58, 1—2. Petitioner filed a petition challenging claims of a
`
`patent related to the ?307 patent in Case IPR2021-00716 (instituted), and
`
`petitions challenging claims of other patents asserted in one or more ofthe
`
`district court cases in Cases IPR2021-00717 (denied), IPR2021-00718
`
`(denied), IPR2021-00719 (denied), IPR2021-00720 (instituted), and
`
`IPR2021-00721 (instituted). Hyundai Motor America (“Hyundar’) filed a
`
`petition challenging claims 11—20 of the ’307 patent in Case IPR2021-01305
`
`(instituted, “the Hyundai IPR”)! andpetitions challenging claims of other
`
`patents asserted in one or moreofthe district court cases in
`
`Cases IPR2021-01267 (instituted), [PR2021-01303 (instituted), and
`
`IPR2021-01371 (instituted). Variousparties filed petitions and motions
`
`for joinderto certain of the instituted proceedings, which were granted, in
`
`Cases IPR2022-00203, IPR2022-00204, and IPR2022-00224.
`
`C. The ’307 Patent
`
`The ’307 patent discloses “[a] broadcast response system [that]
`
`provides, e.g., a radio broadcastlistener with the ability to obtain media
`
`content such as music or speech while listening to the radio.” Ex. 1001,
`
`code (57). “From the early days of FM broadcast transmission, stations have
`
`included ancillary signals such as background music or reading servicesfor
`
`the blind along with a main carriersignal.” /d. at col. 1, Il. 29-31. “The
`
`most current and widely used data transmission standardis the United States
`
`Radio Broadcast Data Systems (“RBDS’) standard”in which a system
`
`' The Hyundai IPRinvolves different prior art from the references asserted
`in this proceeding. Ina concurrently entered final written decision in the
`Hyundai IPR, we determine that Hyundai has shown bya preponderance of
`the evidencethat claims 11—20 of the ’307 patent are unpatentable.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`“broadcast[s] a variety of program-related information,” such as station “call
`
`letters, station format, traffic alerts and scrolling text messages,” on a
`
`“subcarrier of a standard FM broadcast channel.” /d. at col. 1, IL 35-56.
`
`The ’307 patent states that “[b]roadcasters using the RBDS standard can
`
`distribute information to a large numberofusers,” but “the standard does not
`
`allow individual users to respondto the broadcast information.” /d. at col. 2,
`
`ll. 28-31. For example, a userlistening to the radio maylike a particular
`
`song that he or she would like to purchase, but “must write down or
`
`rememberthe identifying information and then go to a store or online
`
`retailer to purchase the media.” /d. at col. 2, Il. 32-39. The ’307 patent
`
`purportedly solves that problem by allowing the user to respondto the
`
`broadcast and purchase media content.
`
`/d. at col. 2, Il. 55—60.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`together below.
`
`The *307 patent includes Figures 1A—D, which are reproduced
`
`EHORYPYED GATA o INTERRET O&
`DEDICATES BATA LIN
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7®
`
`
`
`SN BASIJANE PRODRAM
`A HES Sustawkees
`
`FP
`
`
`
`
`ry
`
`FIG. IG
`
`DONSLOAL LOCANUNYTODE
`ORFORMATON & COMEAND
`
`a
`
`FIG. FD
`
`
`
`AVAILABLESORRATAHASS(RFGiEATION
` OSES TROQOCE
`
`ate
`
`
`Figures 1A—D depict radio station 140, radio receiver 100, and various other
`
`devices.
`
`/d. at col. 4, Il. 22—25. Radio automation or CD playback system
`
`142 “extract[s] information about songs or a radio program”from various
`
`sources and providesplaylist information to Automatic Purchase System
`
`(APS) server 144, which matchesthe extracted information with information
`
`in a database of audio files available to download.
`
`/d. at col. 5, IL 41-52.
`
`If sucha file is available, APS server 144 provides downloadinformation to
`
`RBDS/RDS encoder 148.
`
`/d. at col. 5, Il. 52-55. RBDS/RDSencoder 148
`
`then “transmits the RBDS/RDS information using the 57 khz RBDS/RDS
`
`subcarrier 170 to the FM transmission system 146. The RBDS/RDS
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`subcarrier signal 170 is mixed by the FM transmission system 146 with the
`
`FM baseband program signal 172 and any other subcarriers.” /d. at col. 5,
`
`I. 57-62. “The FM transmission system 146 then transmits an FM [radio
`
`frequency (RF )| signal 162 which is received by the radio receiver 100.”
`
`Id. at col. 5, Il. 62-63.
`
`The ’307 patent describes various types of information that can be
`
`providedto the radio user using the data subcarriersignal, such as a song
`
`title, artist, album name,purchaseprice of the song, and IP address for the
`
`location wherethe digital version of the song is stored.
`
`/d. at col. 3,
`
`Il. 39-45, col. 5, Il. 4-13, 48-49. A “reference number”representing the
`
`information stored in a lookup table accessed by APS server 144 “can also
`
`be employed for ease of implementation.” /d. at col. 3, Il. 42-48.
`
`RF demodulator section 102 “splits the [received FM RF signal]
`
`into an audio signal and a data signal.” /d. at col. 4, Il. 39-43. Audio
`
`demodulator amplifier section 108 receives the audio signal and convertsit
`
`to audio signal 128 that can be output on speaker 118.
`
`/d. at col. 4,
`
`I. 35-38, 53-54. RBDS/RDS decoder 106 receivesthe data signal and
`
`processesit to display information to the user on scrolling display 110.
`
`/d.
`
`at col. 4, Il. 39-47, col. 4,1. 66—col. 5, 1. 3.
`
`The ’307 patent further describes a process whereby“a user can place
`
`an order to download a songusing the control interface 116”of radio
`
`receiver 100.
`
`/d. atcol. 5, Il. 14-15. Radio receiver 100 providesa signal to
`
`authentication and billing system 152 (e.g., over wireless Internet connection
`
`156) and, whenthe purchaseis approved, downloadserver 154 provides the
`
`requested material to radio receiver 100 (e.g., over wireless Internet
`
`connection 158).
`
`/d. at col. 5, ll. 15-40. The ’307 patent discloses that
`
`““liJn one embodiment, activity of each sale using the [disclosed] system is
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`tracked for the purposes of aggregating data or ‘Data Mining’ for sale to
`
`interested parties such as trade publications and record companies.” /d. at
`
`col. 3, Il 52-55.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`
`Challenged claim 11 of the ’307 patent is independent. Claims 15-18
`
`each dependdirectly from claim 11. Claim 11 recites (with letter
`
`designations used in the Petition to refer to the variouslimitations):
`
`11. A system for correlating media content identifying
`data with at
`least one broadcast segment received by a
`communication device, the system comprising:
`[a] a receiver configured to receive a broadcast stream
`comprising the at least one broadcast segment and associated
`media content, [b] the receiver further configured to receive a
`data stream associated with the broadcast stream, the data stream
`comprising, at a minimum, the media content identifying data,
`wherein the media content identifying data comprisesat least one
`element;
`
`[c] at least one computer processor configured to extract
`the media content
`identifying data from the data stream,
`associating each media content identifying data element with at
`least one of a plurality of media content;
`
`[d] an electronic memory of the communication device
`configured to store, at a minimum, media content identifying
`data elements into identifying data aggregates, each identifying
`data aggregate associated with at least one of the plurality of
`media content andtheat least one broadcast segment, [e] wheren
`the at least one broadcast segmentis corollary to the at least one
`of the plurality of media content; and
`
`[f] an output configured to present at least a portion of the
`data elements
`stored in
`the electronic memory of
`the
`communication device to provide selective outputting using an
`interface of at least one of the following:
`the media content
`identifying data, the media content, the corollary broadcast
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`segment, a temporalposition of the corollary broadcast segment
`of the broadcast stream.
`
`Ei. Evidence
`
`The pending groundsof unpatentability in the instant interpartes
`
`review are based on the following priorart:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,317,784 B1, filed Sept. 29, 1998, issued
`Nov. 13, 2001 (Ex. 1005, “Mackintosh”); and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,579,537,
`(Ex. 1004, “Takahisa”).
`Petitionerfiled a declaration from Vyay Madisetti, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003) with its
`
`issued Nov. 26, 1996
`
`Petition anda reply declaration from Dr. Madisetti (Ex. 1018) withits
`
`Reply. Patent Ownerfiled a declaration from John C. Hart, Ph.D.
`
`(Ex. 2019) with its Response. Also submitted as evidenceare transcripts of
`
`the depositions of Dr. Madisetti (Ex. 2021) and Dr. Hart (Ex. 1019).
`
`FI. Asserted Grounds
`
`This interpartes review involvesthe following grounds of
`
`unpatentability (Pet. 3):
`
`50)
`
`ackintos
`
`* The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the
`challenged claims of the ’307 patent have an effectivefiling date before the
`effective date of the applicable AIA amendments, werefer to the pre-AIA
`versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Pet. 3; PO Resp. 16.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`Il. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Level ofOrdinary Skill in the Art
`
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art for a challenged
`
`patent, we look to “1) the types of problems encounteredin the art; 2) the
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; 3) the rapidity with which innovations
`
`are made; 4) the sophistication of the technology; and 5) the educational
`
`level of active workersin the field.” Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co. , 234 F.3d 654,
`
`666—667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Not all such factors may be present in every
`
`case, and one or more of them may predominate.” Jd. at 667.
`
`Petitioner arguesthat at the time of the *307 patent (September 2000),
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a B.S. in computer
`
`science or electrical engineering (or a related field), and approximately three
`
`years of experience working in the communications- or Internet-related
`
`industries, or, alternatively, an advanced degree (such as a master’s degree)
`
`in computerscienceorelectrical engineering (ora related field).” Pet. 7
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 § 44); see Ex. 1003 § 29. Patent Ownerapplies the same
`
`definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 16 (citing
`
`Ex. 2019 §] 58-59). Based on the full record developed duringtrial,
`
`including our review ofthe *307 patent and the types of problems and
`
`solutions described in the ’307 patent andcited prior art, we agree with
`
`Petitioner’s proposeddefinition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and
`
`apply it for purposesof this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 1,
`
`|. 28—col. 2, 1. 51 (describing in the “Background”section of the *307 patent
`
`various FM broadcast and other communication methods).
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`B. Claim Interpretation
`
`Weinterpret the claims of the challenged patent
`
`using the same claim construction standard that would be used to
`construe the [claims] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b),
`including construing the [claims] in accordance with the ordinary
`and customary meaning of such [claims] as understoodby one of
`ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to
`the patent.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). “In determining the meaning of[a] disputed
`
`claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence ofrecord,
`
`examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the
`
`prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic
`
`Sofamor Danek, Inc. , 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Claim terms
`
`are given their plain and ordinary meaning as would be understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention andin the
`
`context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “There are only two exceptions to
`
`this general rule: 1) when a patenteesets out a definition and acts as his own
`
`lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavowsthe full scope of a claim
`
`term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony
`
`Comput. Entm’tAm. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`1. Preamble ofClaim I1
`
`In the Decision on Institution, we determined based on the record at
`
`the time that the preamble of claim 11 is limiting because the body of the
`
`3 The claim interpretations adopted herein are identical to those setforth in
`the concurrently entered final written decision in the Hyundai IPR, with one
`exception—weneednotinterpret “broadcast stream”in that proceeding.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`claim refers to the preamble for antecedent basis for the terms “media
`99 ¢¢
`
`contentidentifying data,”
`
`“at least one broadcast segment,” and
`
`“communication device.” See Dec. on Inst. 27 n.5; Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell
`
`Int'l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Whenlimitations in the
`
`body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedentbasis from the preamble,
`
`then the preamble may act as a necessary componentofthe claimed
`
`invention.”). Patent Owneragrees, and Petitioner does not argue otherwise
`
`in its Petition or Reply. See Pet. 49 (arguing that “[r]egardless of whether
`
`the preamble is limiting,
`
`it is disclosed by Mackintosh”); PO Resp. 33-34.
`
`Based onthefull trial record, we determine that the preamble of claim 11 is
`
`limiting.
`
`2.
`
`“Broadcast Stream”
`
`Petitioner argues that “broadcast stream”should be interpreted to
`
`mean
`
`“any media conveyance methodology that conveys information
`in the form of a signal,”
`including,
`for example, data,
`information, or programming distributed over AM/FM radio,
`digital
`radio,
`the Internet, satellite, cable, analog television,
`digital television, orthe like.
`
`Pet. 8. Patent Owner doesnot object to Petitioner’s proposed interpretation.
`
`POResp. 17. We adoptPetitioner’s proposedinterpretation, which1s
`
`consistent with the Specification of the ’307 patent. See Pet. 8—10 (citing
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 1, 1. 29-col. 2,1. 51, col. 4, Il. 16-21, col. 10, 1. 56—col. 11,
`
`1. 20).
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`3.
`
`“Broadcast Segment”
`
`In the Decision on Institution, based on the recordat the time,
`
`we agreed with and adoptedPetitioner’s proposed interpretation of
`
`“broadcast segment”as “a distinguishable piece or portion of a broadcast
`
`stream, such as an individual song, speech, or video.” See Dec. on Inst.
`
`20-23; Pet. 10. PatentOwnerarguesthat “broadcast segment”instead
`
`should be interpreted to mean “a discretely identifiable portion of
`
`programming as broadcasted.” POResp. 17-20.
`
`Asan initial matter, we note—andthe parties agree—thatthereis
`
`little difference between the parties’ proposedinterpretations. Petitioner’s
`
`proposedinterpretation uses the term “distinguishable,” whereas Patent
`
`Owneruses “discretely identifiable.” See Pet. 10; PO Resp. 17. According
`
`to Petitioner, however, there is no difference between “distinguishable” and
`
`“identifiable,” as the termsare “largely interchangeable.” Tr. 11:10—-19,
`
`78:15—20. Similarly, Petitioner’s proposedinterpretation uses the phrase
`
`“portion of a broadcast stream,” whereas Patent Owneruses“portion of
`
`programming as broadcasted.” See Pet. 10;PO Resp. 17. Petitioner agrees
`
`that “ofa broadcast stream” and “as broadcasted” are “one and the same.”
`
`Tr. 79:21—80:7.
`
`The dispute betweenthe parties appears to be in the application ofthe
`
`prior art when using Patent Owner’s proposedinterpretation. See id. at
`
`10:5—9 (arguing that “[i]t is when [Patent Owner] begin[s] to apply [its]
`
`construction that the differences becomeapparent and [Patent Owner1s]
`
`essentially cobbling on additional limitations to that construction”), 80:8—25.
`
`Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s arguments import four additional
`
`requirements that are not supported by the claim language or Specification
`
`of the 307 patent:
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`each broadcast segment must be “discretely identifiable
`relative to all other ‘broadcast segments’ transmitted” and
`“contextually uniqueto all others”;
`
`“a broadcast segment can occur once and only once”;
`each broadcast
`segment
`“must have
`a_
`temporal
`component”; and
`broadcast segments must differentiate between different
`instancesof the same song being broadcast multiple times
`in a day.
`
`Reply 2-3 (citations omitted). None of these, however, are part of Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed interpretation. To the extent relevant, we discuss them
`
`below in our analysis of Petitioner’s obviousness ground based on
`
`Mackintosh. See infra Section I.D.2.b.
`
`After reviewing the full trial record, we are persuadedthat the
`
`phrasing of Patent Owner’s proposedinterpretation is correct, primarily
`
`because ofits use of “as broadcasted.”
`
`First, by its plain language, a “broadcast segment”is a “segment” of
`
`a “broadcast.” See Tr. 10:24—11:1, 17:20—18:5 (Petitioner agreeing that
`
`a “broadcast segment”is “a segment of the broadcast” andis, for example,
`
`“distinguishable from the very next segment and the segmentafter that’);
`
`Ex. 2021, 22:20—23:7 (Dr. Madisetti agreeing that the ’307 patent “clearly
`
`describe[s] an example of a distinguishable piece or portion of the work
`
`as streamed as an individual song” (emphasis added)). Petitioner’s proposed
`
`interpretation is that a “broadcast segment”is a piece or portion “of a
`
`broadcast stream,” but that is already part of the claim—limitation 11[a]
`
`recites “a broadcast stream comprising the at least one broadcast segment”
`
`(emphasis added). See Pet. 10. Patent Owner’s proposedinterpretation
`
`more clearly specifies that a “broadcast segment”is a portion of
`
`programming “as broadcasted.” See PO Resp. 17. To illustrate, although a
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`song can be an example ofa “broadcast segment,” the “broadcast segment”
`
`is not the song in the abstract, but rather the portion of the broadcastthatis
`
`the song. In other words, ““[a]n individual song’ as broadcasted may serve
`
`as one example of a “broadcast segment’ because the broadcast ofthe song
`
`constitutes a discretely identifiable portion of broadcasting as broadcasted.”
`
`See id. at 19 (emphasis added); Sur-Reply 9. Weare persuadedthat the
`
`language of claim 11 supports Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation.
`
`Second, although the Specification of the ’307 patent only uses the
`
`term “broadcast segment”twice, it provides some support for Patent
`
`Owner’s view that a “broadcast segment”is a portion of programming
`
`“as broadcasted.” The Specification discloses:
`
`[R]adio station 140, using either a standard radio automation
`system for tracking of music content which is being broadcast,
`or a data-enabled audio player, broadcasts audio material and
`synchronously sends RBDS/RDS or similar data to an APS
`server 144 that assigns a unique identifier to each specific
`broadcast segment or song,
`The APS server 144 compares the broadcast segment
`identifier with a database 150 of audio available for purchase. If
`the broadcasted audio is
`available,
`the APS server 144
`incorporates station call
`letter mformation, and an audio
`downloadlocation such as IP address anda file name into a data
`stream that is inserted into a radio station’s broadcast using
`RBDS/RDS orsimilar technology. The information identifying
`the audio selected by the listener or user is routed to the APS
`Data Server and passedonto the location wherea digital version
`ofthe audio content 1s stored and available for transfer to the end
`user. The user’s radio receiver 100 receives and recognizes the
`encoded RBDS/RDS orother data and presents it on the radio
`display 110 notifying the user that the audio is available for
`purchase.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 5, |. 64—col. 6, |. 16 (emphasis added). Thus, inthe exemplary
`
`embodiment described above,the “broadcast segment”is a portion of the
`
`audio content being broadcasted.* Seeid.
`
`Based onthe full trial record, we interpret “broadcast segment”to
`
`mean “a discretely identifiable portion of programming as broadcasted.”
`
`4.
`
`“Media Content”
`
`In the Decision on Institution, based on the record at the time,
`
`we agreed with and adoptedPetitioner’s proposed interpretation of “media
`
`content” as “any form of media content that, when translated from the
`
`signal-form in whichit is transmitted, is discernible to humans.” Dec. on
`
`Inst. 23. Patent Ownerdoes not object to that interpretation, which we adopt
`
`based on the full trial record. See PO Resp.20.
`
`5.
`
`“Receiver Configured to Receive a Broadcast Stream Comprising the
`At Least One Broadcast Segment andAssociatedMedia Content”
`In the Decision on Institution, based on the record at the time,
`
`we noted that Petitioner’s proposedinterpretations of “broadcast segment”
`
`and “media content”
`
`read the claim language as encompassing the same underlying
`content (e.g., a song) in two different forms—the “broadcast
`segment” being a distinguishable piece or portion of the
`broadcast stream itself, which is in signal-form, and the “media
`content” being the content after it has been translated from
`signal-form into a form that is discernible to humans.
`
`+ The “broadcast segment” described in the Specification also has an
`assigned “unique identifier” as part of the broadcast. Ex. 1001, col. 5,
`|. 64—col. 6,1. 2. Patent Ownerpoints to that disclosure as support for
`dependent claim 16, which recites “data that enables a unique identification
`of the least one broadcast segment.” PO Resp. 55—56.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`Dec. on Inst. 22—23. Westated that Petitioner’s reading appeared to be
`
`consistent with the Specification, but encouragedthe parties to addressin
`
`their papers the interpretation of the full “receiver”limitation in claim 11.
`
`Id. Patent Ownerarguesthat a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
`
`understand the clause consistent with the Board’s finding, with the
`
`qualification” that we should adopt Patent Owner’s proposedinterpretation
`
`of “broadcast segment.” PO Resp. 20—22. Petitioner “agrees with the
`
`Board’s interpretation but disagrees with” Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`interpretation of “broadcast segment.” Reply 7-8. Based onthefull trial
`
`record, we maintain our earlier determination for the “receiver”limitation
`
`and adopt Patent Owner’s proposedinterpretation of “broadcast segment”
`
`for the reasons explained above. See supra Section II.B.3.
`
`6.
`
`“Associate” Terms
`
`Claim 11 recites “a broadcast stream comprising the at least one
`
`broadcast segment and associated media content,” receiverthat “receive[s|
`
`a data stream associated with the broadcast stream,” computer processorthat
`
`“extract[s] the media content identifying data from the data stream,
`
`associating each media contentidentifying data element with at least one of
`
`a plurality of media content,” and “each identifying data aggregate
`
`associated with at least one of the plurality of media content andtheat least
`
`one broadcast segment” (emphasis added). Claim 18 recites “an input
`
`configured to detect a selection associated with the presentation ofthe stored
`
`data” (emphasis added). Werefer to these as the “associate” terms.
`
`After our Decision on Institution, the district court issued a Claim
`
`Construction Order construing the terms “associated,”“associating,” and
`
`“associating each media contentidentifying data element with at least one of
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`a plurality of media content” to each havetheir “[p]lain and ordinary
`
`meaning.” Ex. 3003, 1-2. During the district court proceedings, Patent
`
`Ownerproposedthe “[p]lain and ordinary meaning”construction, whereas
`
`Petitioner argued that the terms wereindefinite. Ex. 3001, 1-2.
`
`In this proceeding, Patent Ownerargues in its Responsethat the
`
`“associate” terms “are used in their ordinary mannerin the context of the
`
`°307 patent to mean an implementedlink between twoor more items (such
`
`as data, broadcast segments, and media content)” wherethelink is “formal,”
`
`“intentional,” and “implemented”by the system of claim 11. PO Resp.
`
`22-23 (citing Ex. 2019 99 71-72). According to Patent Owner,thisis
`
`different than a merely “conceptual”link; the term “related,” for example,
`
`also is used in the Specification ofthe ’307 patent and does not necessarily
`
`require “a connection that is implemented in a system.” /d. (citing Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 1, Il. 26, 38-42, col. 8, Il. 7-12, col. 11, Il 13-17, 27-30). Petitioner
`
`disagrees, arguing that the terms “refer to two concepts that were
`
`conceptually connected without the need for a system to store a link” and
`
`citing other portions of the Specification that use the term “associated.”
`
`Reply 8—9 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 7, Il. 27-33, col. 8, Il. 12-14; Ex. 1018
`
`4 39-41).
`
`Weagree with Petitioner. Patent Owner doesnot point to—and we do
`
`not find—anylanguage in the claims requiring that the recited associations
`
`be implementedin a particular way, such as by the system storingalink.
`
`Rather, each limitation merely recites that one item is “associate[d]” with
`
`another: “broadcast segment” with “media content,” “data stream” with
`99 ¢¢
`
`“broadcast stream,”
`
`“each media contentidentifying data element” with
`99 6¢
`
`“at least one of a plurality of media content,”
`
`“each identifying data
`
`ageregate” with “at least one of the plurality of media content andthe at
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`least one broadcast segment,” and “selection” with “the presentation of the
`
`stored data.”
`
`Nor doesthe Specification define or use the term “associated”in a
`
`mannerindicating that the term should be limited to require a formallink
`
`implementedby the disclosed system. To the contrary, in every instance, the
`
`Specification uses the term “associated”broadly to refer to two itemsrelated
`
`to each other in some manner; for example, consistent with the language of
`
`claim 11, the Specification explains howabroadcast may have an
`
`“associated” data stream providing information about whatis being played.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 6, Il. 31-33 (“storage server 154 at a source location
`
`... uploads the requested audio to the routing address associated with the
`
`user’s cell phone accountidentifier’’), col. 7, Il. 27—33 (“[a]utomotive radios
`
`equipped with the APS module 202 and associated technologies... senda
`
`purchaserequest(or interactive response) complete with [other information|
`
`accompanying the associated broadcast’), col. 8, Il. 7-14 (“The user can
`
`also receive offers or hyperlinks posted on a personal website... .
`
`Associated books, magazinearticles, merchandise and event information can
`
`also be posted for the user to purchase using the APS.”), col. 12, Il. 13-20
`
`(“television adapters equipped with the APS module 302 and associated
`
`technologies can use a wireless interface 318 to send a purchase request (or
`
`interactive response) complete with [other information] derived from the
`
`RBDS/RDS data string accompanying the associated broadcast”) (emphasis
`
`added). The merefact that the Specification also uses “related” in other
`
`contexts does not demonstrate that the patentee intended for there to be a
`
`meaningful difference between “related” and “associated.”
`
`Weinterpret the “associate” terms to not require a formallink
`
`implemented by the system of claim 11 as Patent Ownerargues, and
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`conclude that no further interpretation is necessary to decide the issues
`
`presented during trial. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`
`Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we needonly
`
`construe terms‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to
`
`resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe[a particular claim limitation|
`299
`
`wherethe construction is not “material to the . .. dispute.’”
`
`(citation
`
`omitted)).
`
`7.
`
`“Corollary”
`
`In the Decision on Institution, we encouragedthe parties to address in
`
`their papers the interpretation of the term “corollary” in clam 11. Dec. on
`
`Inst. 23. Patent Owner arguesthat the term means“correlated,” and
`
`Petitioner does not object. See PO Resp. 23; Reply 9. We conclude that no
`
`interpretation of the term is necessary to decide the issues presented during
`
`trial. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.
`
`C. Legal Standards
`
`To prevail in its challenges to the patentability of clams 11 and 15-18
`
`of the *307 patent, Petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderanceofthe
`
`evidencethat the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. §316(e). “In an [inter
`
`partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with
`
`particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc.v.
`
`Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This burden of
`
`persuasion nevershifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l
`
`Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also In re
`
`Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd. , 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(““Where,as here, the only question presented is whether due consideration
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00712
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`of the four Graham factors renders a claim or claims obvious, no burden
`
`shifts from the patent challenger to the patentee.”’).
`
`A claim is unpatentable for obviousnesstf, to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the pertinentart, “the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`
`patented andthe prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
`
`have been obviousat the time the invention was made.” KSR /nt’] Co.v.
`
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006)).
`
`The question of obviousness1s resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`
`determinations, including “the scope and contentofthe prior art”;
`
`“differences betweenthe prior art and the claimsat issue”; and “the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`
`17-18 (1966). Additionally, objective indicia of nonobviousness, such as
`
`“commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs,failure of others, etc.,
`
`might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of
`
`the subject matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or
`
`nonobviousness,these inquiries may have relevancy.”* /d. When
`
`conducting an obviousnessanalysis, we considera prior art reference “not
`
`only for whatit expressly teaches, but also for whatit fairly suggests.”
`
`Bradium Techs.
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
