Trialsuspta gov
`571-I7822.
`
`Paper 39
`Entered: January 24, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`STRATOSAUDIO,INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-01305
`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 Hyundai Motor Americafiled a Petition (Paper2, “Pet.’’)
`
`requesting interpartes review of claims 11—20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,903,307
`
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the *307 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §311(a).
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01305
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`On January 26, 2022, we instituted an interpartes review asto all
`
`challenged claims on all grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.
`
`Paper 9 (“Decision onInstitution” or “Dec. on Inst.”). Patent Owner
`
`StratosAudio,Inc. filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 18, “PO Resp.”),
`
`Petitionerfiled a Reply (Paper 22, “Reply”), and Patent Ownerfiled a
`
`Sur-Reply (Paper 27, “Sur-Reply”). With our authorization provided by
`
`email, the parties also filed supplemental briefs addressing certain briefing
`
`submitted in related district court litigation. See Papers 33 (“Pet. Supp.
`
`Br.”), 34 (“PO Supp.Br.”’); Exs. 1031, 1032.
`
`A combinedoral hearing with Case IPR2021-01303 washeld on
`
`October 24, 2022, anda transcript of the hearing is includedin the record
`
`(Paper 38, “Tr.”).
`
`Wehavejurisdiction 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 shown by a preponderanceofthe
`
`evidencethat claims 11—20 of the 307 patent are unpatentable.
`
`B. RelatedMatters
`
`Theparties indicate that the 307 patent is 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. 2-3; Paper 4, 1; Paper 32,1. Petitionerfiled a petition challenging
`
`claimsof a patent related to the °307 patent in Case IPR2021-01303
`
`(instituted), and petitions challenging claims of other patents asserted in one
`
`or more ofthe district court cases in Cases IPR2021-01267(instituted) and
`
`IPR2021-01371 (instituted). Volkswagen Group of America,Inc.
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01305
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`(“Volkswagen’’)filed a petition challenging claims 11 and 15—18 of
`
`the °307 patent in Case IPR2021-00712 (instituted,“the Volkswagen IPR”)!
`
`and petitions challenging claims of other patents asserted in one or more of
`
`the district court cases in IPR2021-00716 (instituted), IPR2021-00717
`
`(denied), IPR2021-00718 (denied), IPR2021-00719 (denied),
`
`IPR2021-00720 (instituted), and IPR2021-00721 (instituted). Various
`
`parties filed petitions and motions forjoinder to certain of the instituted
`
`proceedings, which were granted, in Cases IPR2022-00203, IPR2022-00204,
`
`IPR2022-00205, 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 services for
`
`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
`
`“broadcast[s| a variety of program-related information,” suchasstation “call
`
`letters, station format,traffic alerts and scrolling text messages,” on a
`
`“subcarrier of a standard FM broadcast channel.” Jd. atcol. 1, Il. 35-56.
`
`' The Volkswagen IPR involves different prior art from the references
`asserted in this proceeding. Ina concurrently entered final written decision
`in the Volkswagen IPR, we determine that Volkswagen has shown by a
`preponderanceofthe evidence that claims 11 and 15—18 of the ’307 patent
`are unpatentable.
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01305
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`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,
`
`Il 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.
`
`The *307 patent includes Figures 1A—D, which are reproduced
`
`together below.
`
`& QUES SUSARERS
`
`DERGATEQ BALA URE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pe HASCSARL PROGRAM
`
`Fe
`SSUESEH
`y Thar
`
`nant VSTOM s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a
`
`f1G. IE
`
`@i g=
`
`| | |[
`
`4
`
`| | ||
`
`SACRYPYED DATA © INTERNET O&
`DCDICATED Bata US
`
`ENCayerED Gata ~ InSEENET OR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TehWALAPLESONSCALABASYINFORMATE
`<
`
`
`
`
`YOMESSIATESEECOMMSTt
`
`
`
`DOWNLOAD LOCATIONSCONE
`SHPORMATION & COMMENT
`
`\
`
`\
`
`te
`
`A
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01305
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`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
`
`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 subcarrier signal, such as a song
`
`title, artist, album name, purchaseprice of the song, and IP addressfor 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,
`
`Il. 35-38, 53-54. RBDS/RDS decoder106 receivesthe data signal and
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01305
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`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, when the purchaseis approved, downloadserver 154 provides the
`
`requested material to radio receiver 100 (e.g., over wireless Internet
`
`connection 158).
`
`/d. at col. 5, Il. 15-40. The *307 patent discloses that
`
`““liJn one embodiment, activity of each sale using the [disclosed] system is
`
`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 12—20
`
`each dependdirectly or indirectly fromclaim 11. Claim 11 recites (with
`
`letter designations usedin the Petition to refer to the various limitations and
`
`paragraphing added):
`
`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;
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01305
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`[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 and the at least one broadcast segment, wherem
`the at least one broadcast segmentis corollary to the at least one
`of the plurality of media content; and
`[e] an output configured to presentat 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
`segment, a temporalposition of the corollary broadcast segment
`of the broadcaststream.
`
`Ei. Evidence
`
`The pending groundsof unpatentability in the instant interpartes
`
`review are based on the following priorart:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,925,489 B1, filed Nov. 22, 1999, issued
`Aug, 2, 2005 (Ex. 1010, “Curtin”);
`
`US. Patent No. 6,628,928 B1, filed Dec. 10, 1999, issued
`Sept. 30, 2003 (Ex. 1006, “Crosby”’);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,063,610, issued Nov. 5, 1991 (Ex. 1011,
`“Alwadish’’); and
`
`EuropeanPatent No. EP 0 647 377 B2, issued Jan. 7, 1999
`(Ex. 1012, “Koerber”).”
`
`? Werefer to “Koerber”as the English translation of the original patent
`documentin German(bothfiled as Exhibit 1012). Petitioner provided a
`“Certificate of Accuracy”attesting to the accuracy ofthe translation. See
`Ex. 1012, 1; 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b).
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01305
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`Petitionerfiled a declaration from Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D. (Ex. 1002) with
`
`its Petition anda reply declaration from Dr. Almeroth (Ex. 1026) with its
`
`Reply. Patent Ownerfiled a declaration from John C. Hart, Ph.D.
`
`(Ex. 2020) with its Response. Also submitted as evidenceare transcripts of
`
`the depositions of Dr. Almeroth (Exs. 2018, 2021) and Dr. Hart (Ex. 1029).
`
`FI. Asserted Grounds
`
`This interpartes review involvesthe following grounds of
`
`unpatentability (Pet. 4):
`
`11, 13-20
`
`11, 13-20
`
`11, 12, 14-16, 18
`
`12,16
`
`Alwadish, Koerber
`
`Curtin, Crosby
`
`Curtin
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`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 encountered in 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
`
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011)AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the challenged claims
`of the °307 patent have an effective filing date before the effective date of
`the applicable AIA amendment, werefer to the pre-AIA version of
`35 U.S.C. § 103. See Pet. 11.
`* Petitionerlist claims 11, 14, 15, and 18 in “Ground 3”and claims 12 and
`16 in “Ground 4,” both based on obviousness over Alwadish alone. Pet. 4.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01305
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`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.
`
`Petitionerstates that it takes no position on the effective filing date of
`
`the challenged claims of the ’307 patent, but assumesan effective filing date
`
`of September 13, 2000, for purposes ofthe Petition. Pet. 11. Petitioner
`
`arguesin the Petition that a person of ordinary skill in the art at that time
`
`would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, computerscience,or a related field, and at least two years of
`
`experience in the communications- or broadcast-related industries, or the
`
`equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice
`
`versa.” /d. (citing Ex. 1002 99 34, 40-42).
`
`In the Decision on Institution, we adopted a slightly different
`
`definition from the Volkswagen IPR of “a B.S. in computer science or
`
`electrical engineering (ora 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 computer
`
`scienceorelectrical engineering (or a related field), and encouraged the
`
`parties to addressthe issue if they disagreed. Dec. on Inst. 18-19. Patent
`
`Ownerdoesnot opposethe adopted definition and Petitioner did not address
`
`the issue in its Reply. See PO Resp. 19. Based on the full record developed
`
`during trial, including our review of the ’307 patent and the types of
`
`problemsandsolutions described in the ’307 patent andcited priorart,
`
`we maintain the previously adopted definition of the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art and apply it for purposes of 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).
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01305
`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 construingthe [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 meaningof[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).°
`
`> The claim interpretations adopted herein are identical to those setforth in
`the concurrently entered final written decision in the Volkswagen IPR, with
`one exception—weadopt an agreed-uponinterpretation of “broadcast
`stream”in the Volkswagen IPR, but need not interpret the term in this
`proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean MotorCo.,
`868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe
`terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy,’ we need not construe[a particular claim limitation] where the
`construction is not ‘material to the . .. dispute.’”(citation omitted)).
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01305
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`1. Preamble ofClaim I1
`
`In the Decision on Institution, we determinedbased on the record at
`
`the time that the preamble of claim 11 is limiting because the body of the
`
`claim refers to the preamble for antecedentbasis for the terms “media
`99 ¢¢
`
`contentidentifying data,”
`
`“at least one broadcast segment,” and
`
`“communication device.” See Dec. on Inst. 27 n.6; 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. 20, 40 (arguing that Curtin and Alwadish
`
`both “disclose[] or teach[] the preamble of Claim 11, to the extentit is
`
`determinedto be limiting”); PO Resp. 36-37. Based on the full trial record,
`
`we determinethat the preamble of claim 11 1s limiting.
`
`2.
`
`“Broadcast Segment”
`
`In the Decision on Institution, based on the record at the time,
`
`weinterpreted “broadcast segment”as “a distinguishable piece or portion of
`
`a broadcast stream, such asan individual song, speech, or video,” which had
`
`been proposedbythe petitioner in the Volkswagen IPR. See Dec. on Inst.
`
`20. Petitioner agrees with that interpretation. Reply 2-4. Patent Owner
`
`argues that “broadcast segment” instead should be interpreted to mean
`
`“a discretely identifiable portion of programmingas broadcasted.” PO Resp.
`
`20-22; Sur-Reply 2-7.
`
`Asan initial matter, we note that thereis little difference between the
`
`two interpretations. The preliminary interpretation uses the term
`
`“distinguishable,” whereas Patent Owneruses“discretely identifiable.” See
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01305
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`Dec. on Inst. 20; PO Resp. 20. Petitioner acknowledgesthat “as a matter of
`
`English language,” there may not be “muchofa difference between
`
`distinguishable and discretely identifiable.” Tr. 7:3—8:9, 11:6—23.
`
`Similarly, the prelimmary interpretation uses the phrase “portion of a
`
`broadcast stream,” whereas Patent Owneruses “portion of programming as
`
`broadcasted.” See Dec. on Inst. 20; PO Resp. 20. Petitioner states that there
`
`is no difference between “of a broadcast stream”and “‘as broadcasted,” and
`
`agrees with the use of “as broadcasted.” Tr. 7:19—-8:5, 14:10-13.
`
`The dispute betweenthe parties appearsto be in the application ofthe
`
`prior art when using Patent Owner’s proposedinterpretation. See id. at
`99 66
`
`7:3-8:9 (disagreeing with the term “discretely identifiable”
`
`“as applied by
`
`Patent Ownerto the prior art”), 11:6—23 (arguing that the issue is how
`
`“Patent Owneris applying its interpretation to the prior art’); Reply 2-4,
`
`8—10, 22-24. For example, Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments import requirements that broadcast segmentsdifferentiate
`
`between different instances of the same song broadcasted multiple times and
`
`are tracked for purposes of aggregating data or “data mining.” See Reply
`
`8-10, 22-24. Thesealleged requirements, however,are not part of Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed interpretation. To the extent relevant, we discuss them
`
`below in our analysis of Petitioner’s obviousness grounds. See infra
`
`Sections IJ.D.3.b, I. F.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 tts plain language, a “broadcast segment”is a “segment” of
`
`a “broadcast.” See Reply 2 (arguing that “the plain meaning of ‘broadcast
`299
`299
`is “a ‘segment’ of a ‘broadcast’”’); Tr. 8:12—25 (Petitioner arguing
`
`segment’”
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01305
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`that the plain and ordinary meaningis “a segmentor portion of a broadcast
`
`or sometype of transmission’), 10:1—6 (Petitioner agreeing that a “broadcast
`
`segment”is distinguishable from “others within the broadcast,” such as the
`
`immediately preceding and subsequent broadcast segments). Our
`
`preliminary proposedinterpretation wasthat 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). Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`interpretation moreclearly specifies that a “broadcast segment”is a portion
`
`of programming “as broadcasted.” See PO Resp. 20. To illustrate, although
`
`a song can be an example of a “broadcast segment,”the “broadcast segment”
`
`is not the song in the abstract, but rather the portion of the broadcastthatis
`
`the song. See Tr. 9:2—7 (Petitioner agreeing that the term refers not to
`
`“a song in the abstract,” but rather “a song that’s part of a broadcast’).
`
`In other words, an individual song as broadcasted may be an example of a
`
`“broadcast segment” because the broadcastof the song constitutes a
`
`discretely identifiable portion of a broadcasting that includes the song. We
`
`are persuadedthat the language of claim 11 supports Patent Owner’s
`
`proposedinterpretation.
`
`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
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01305
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`server 144 that assigns a unique identifier to each specific
`broadcast segmentor 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 nameinto 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 Serverand 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.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 5, |. 64—col. 6, |. 16 (emphasis added). Thus, inthe exemplary
`
`embodimentdescribed 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.”
`
`° 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 Ownercontends that the unique identifiers are “data
`that enables a unique identification of each specific broadcast segment,”
`which matchesthe language of dependentclaim 16 (1.e., “data that enables a
`uniqueidentification of the least one broadcast segment”). See PO Resp.11.
`Also, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s proposedinterpretation, which
`uses the phrase “discretely identifiable,” 1s improper becauseit “would
`render[the “unique identification’ language of claim 16] redundant and
`improperly capture claim 16’s scope”. See Reply 2-3. Wedisagree. Claim
`16 providesa further limit on what the “data stream”of claim 11
`comprises—namely,it “further comprises data that enables a unique
`identification ofthe at least one broadcast segment.” Patent Owner’s
`proposedinterpretation, by contrast, correctly pertains to what the
`“broadcast segment”is. See Sur-Reply 3.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01305
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`3.
`
`“Media Content”
`
`In the Decision on Institution, based on the recordat the time,
`
`weinterpreted “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. 20. The parties do not dispute that interpretation,
`
`which weadopt based onthefull trial record. See PO Resp. 22; Reply 4.
`
`4.
`
`“Receiver Configured to Receive a Broadcast Stream Comprising the
`At Least One Broadcast Segment andAssociatedMedia Content”
`
`In the Decision on Institution, we noted our previousanalysis in the
`
`Volkswagen IPR and encouragedthe parties to addressin their papers the
`
`interpretation of the full “receiver”limitation in clam 11. Dec. on Inst.
`
`20-21. Specifically, in the Volkswagen IPR,the petitioner had
`
`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.
`
`IPR2021-00712, Paper 16, 22—23. Westated that, based on the record at the
`
`time, that reading appeared to be consistent with the Specification of the
`
`°307 patent.
`
`/d. Patent Ownerarguesthat a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art “would understandthe clause consistent with the Board’s finding, with
`
`the qualification” that we should adopt Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`interpretation of “broadcast segment.” PO Resp. 23—24. Petitioner agrees
`
`that our preliminary interpretation in the Volkswagen IPR“is consistent with
`
`how a [personofordinary skill in the art] would have understood th[e] claim
`
`term in view ofthe [S]pecification.” Reply 5. Based on the full trial record,
`
`we maintain our earlier determination in the Volkswagen IPR for the
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01305
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`“receiver”limitation and adopt Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation of
`
`“broadcast segment”for the reasons explained above. See supra Section
`
`II.B.2; IPR2021-00712, Paper 16, 22—23.
`
`5.
`
`“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
`
`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 Ownerarguesin 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 clam 11. PO Resp.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01305
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`24—25 (citing Ex. 2020 J§ 58-59); Sur-Reply 7-8. According to Patent
`
`Owner,this is different than a merely “conceptual” link; the term “related,”
`
`for example, also is used in the Specification of the ’307 patent and does not
`
`necessarily require “a connection that is implemented tn a system.”
`
`PO Resp. 24—25 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 1, IL 26, 38-42, col. 8, Il. 7-12,
`
`col. 11, Il 13-17, 27-30). Petitioner respondsthat the terms should be given
`
`their “plain meaning, which merely indicates somerelationship between
`
`items,” arguing that the requirement of an implemented “link”is not
`
`supported by the Specification, file history, or extrinsic evidence. Reply 5-6
`
`(citing Ex. 1026 Jf 21-22).
`
`Wedisagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. Patent Ownerdoes not
`
`point to—andwedonotfind—any language in the claims requiring that the
`
`recited associations be implementedin a particular way, suchas by the
`
`system storing a link. Rather, each limitation merely recites that one item is
`
`“associate[d]” with another: “broadcast segment” with “media content,”
`99 ¢¢
`
`“data stream” with “broadcast stream,”
`
`“each media contentidentifying data
`99 6¢
`
`element” with “at least one of a plurality of media content,”
`
`“each
`
`identifying data aggregate” with “at least one of the plurality of media
`
`content and the at 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 items related
`
`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.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01305
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`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
`
`purchase request(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 datastring accompanying the associated broadcast”) (emphasis
`
`added); see also Tr. 66:2 1—67:8 (Patent Owneragreeing that the
`
`Specification does not describe expressly a formal, implementedlink). The
`
`merefact that the Specification also uses “related” in other contexts does not
`
`demonstrate that the patentee intendedfor 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
`
`conclude that no further interpretation is necessary to decide the issues
`
`presented duringtrial.’ See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.
`
`7 Given the analysis above, we need not determine whether Patent Owner’s
`proposedinterpretation in this proceedingis inconsistent with argumentstt
`madein a related district court case, as Petitioner contends. See Pet. Supp.
`Br. 2—3; PO Supp.Br. 2-3.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01305
`Patent 8,903,307 B2
`
`6.
`
`“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. 20-21. Patent Ownerarguesthat the term means“correlated,” and
`
`Petitioner agrees. See PO Resp. 25; Reply 6. Weconcludethat 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—20 of the
`
`°307 patent, Petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderanceofthe evidence
`
`that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. §316(e). “Inan [interpartes
`
`review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with
`
`particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” HarmonicI