In several instances, Petitioner failed to heed the warnings of the TPG Update and has supplied uncorroborated, declaration testimony evidence from its expert that attempts to “take the place of disclosure from patents or printed publication.” Id.
At best, Rangan discloses that users can click on hotspots “so as to be hyperlinked (transported) to another video or web page, or so as to trigger an event such as a slide show or an interactive session or activate an e- commerce transaction.” (Id., 21:29-33 (emphasis added).)
Patent 9,124,950 Board’s finding of nonobviousness where the proposed combinations changed the basic principles under which the prior art was designed to operate) (internal quotations omitted); see also R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 BV, IPR2018-00629, Paper No. 10, at 19-20 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2018).
Patent 9,124,950 Perhaps as a tacit acknowledgement of its weak argument, Petitioner asserts a back-up position by arguing that “Abecassis expressly discloses identifying the beginning of a segment in which a pause occurred and resuming the video at that location.” (Pet. 99 (citing Ex. 1024, 5:6-12, 14:31-48, 53:26-57).)
Patent 9,124,950 Notably, Rakib’s specification fails to supply an objective standard for measuring the scope of the subject term, “in the neighborhood,” and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that phrase to mean at least enough video information to create a unique signature.