Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 13
`Filed: April 13, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CONVERGENT MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 13
`Filed: April 13, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CONVERGENT MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Unified Patents Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to
`institute inter partes review of claims 1–5, 16, 18, 24–26, 32–38, 40–42, 49,
`51–53, 55, and 58–61 of U.S. Patent No. 8,640,183 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’183
`patent”). Convergent Media Solutions, LLC, (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response (Paper 9, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we are
`persuaded, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of
`claims 1–5, 16, 18, 24–26, 32–38, 40–42, 49, 51–53, 55, and 58–61 of the
`’183 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of these
`claims.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Petitioner identifies the following as matters that could affect, or be
`affected by, a decision in this proceeding: Convergent Media Solutions LLC
`v. AT&T Inc., Case No. 3-15-cv-02156 (N.D. Tex.); Convergent Media
`Solutions LLC v. Hulu, Inc., Case No. 3-15-cv-02158 (N.D. Tex.);
`Convergent Media Solutions LLC v. Netflix Inc., Case No. 3-15-cv-02160
`(N.D. Tex.). Pet. 2. Patent Owner identifies each of the preceding matters
`as well as the following as a matter that could affect, or be affected by, a
`decision in this proceeding: Convergent Media Solutions LLC v. Roku, Inc.;
`Case No. 3-15-cv-02163 (N.D. Tex.). Paper 4, 2.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`
`C. Evidence Relied Upon1
`
`Reference
`
`Chen
`
`US 8,479,238 B2
`
`Elabbady
`
`US 7,483,958 B1
`
`Effective Date
`
`Exhibit
`
`May 14, 20022
`
`Mar. 26, 20023
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Meade
`
`US Pub. 2003/0073412 A1 Oct. 16, 20014
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Chen and Elabbady
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Meade and Elabbady
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Claims Challenged
`1–5, 16, 18, 24–26, 32–38, 40–
`42, 49, 51–53, 55, and 58–61
`1, 16, 18, 24, 32, 33, 37, 38, 41,
`and 58–60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner also relies upon the Declaration of Jon Weissman (Ex. 1002).
`2 Chen was filed on May 14, 2002 and issued on July 2, 2013. For purposes
`of this decision, we consider Chen to be prior art to the ’183 patent under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(e) with an effective date of May 14, 2002. See § II.C infra.
`3 Elabbady was filed on March 26, 2002 and issued on January 27, 2009. It
`is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), with an effective date of March 26,
`2002.
`4 Meade was filed on October 16, 2001 and published on April 17, 2003. It
`is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) with an effective date of October 16,
`2001.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. The ’183 Patent
`The ’183 patent relates to systems and methods for navigating
`hypermedia using multiple coordinated input/output device sets. Ex. 1001,
`3:13–15. The method allows “a user and/or an author to control what
`resources are presented on which device sets.” Id. at 3:15–17. The device
`sets may include laptops, desktops, tablets, personal digital assistants
`(PDAs), televisions (TVs), set-top boxes, video cassette recorders (VCRs)
`and digital video recorders (DVRs). Id. at 16:28–43, 18:32–59, 19:32–47.
`The term hypermedia refers to “any kind of media that may have the effect
`of a non-linear structure of associated elements,” and includes “graphics,
`video, and sound.” Id. at 7:13–22. The ’183 patent characterizes video and
`sound as examples of “continuous media,” or a “representation of ‘content’
`elements that have an intrinsic duration, that continue (or extend) and may
`change over time.” Id. at 20:5–9.
`The multiple input/output device sets described in the ’183 patent may
`be coordinated using “a device set management process that performs basic
`setup and update functions . . . to pre-identify and dynamically discover
`device sets.” Ex. 1001 37:36–43. This management process can “be based
`on and compatible with related lower-level processes and standards defined
`for linking such existing devices and systems . . . based on UPnP, HAVi,
`OSGi, Rendezvous and/or the like.” Id. at 37:46–50. The process enables
`basic communications among the devices in the device set, and “provide[s]
`discovery, presence, registration, and naming services to recognize and
`identify devices as they become available to participate in a network, and to
`characterize their capabilities.” Id. at 37:50–55.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`
`Claims 1 and 58–60 of the ’183 patent are independent. Claim 1 is
`representative of the claims of the ’183 patent, and is reproduced below.
`Each of the other challenged claims depends from claim 1 or claim 60.
`1.
`A method for use in a second computerized
`device set which
`is configured for wireless
`communication using a wireless communications
`protocol that enables wireless communication with
`a first computerized device set, wherein the first and
`second computerized device sets include respective
`first and second continuous media players, the
`method comprising:
`
`making available to a user a first user interface that
`allows the user to select a continuous media content
`to be presented to the user, wherein the continuous
`media content includes a set of encoded video data;
`
`making available to the user a second user interface
`that allows the user to select to have the continuous
`media content presented on either one of the first
`computerized device
`set
`and
`the
`second
`computerized device set;
`
`receiving discovery information at the second
`computerized device set in accordance with a
`device management discovery protocol that is
`implemented at a communication layer above an
`internet protocol layer, and
`
`wherein the discovery information allows the
`second computerized device set to determine that
`the first computerized device set is capable of
`receiving the continuous media content and playing
`the continuous media content;
`
`wherein, in the event the user selects, via the second
`user interface, to have the continuous media content
`presented on the second computerized device set,
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`
`the second media player decoding the continuous
`media content for presentation on the second
`computerized device set;
`
`wherein, in the event the user selects, via the second
`user interface, to have the continuous media content
`presented on the first computerized device set,
`wirelessly transmitting, in accordance with a
`wireless local area network protocol, at least a
`resource indicator, wherein the resource indicator
`comprises at least one of a URL, URI, and URN,
`from the second computerized device set to the first
`computerized device set, wherein the resource
`indicator facilitates obtaining the continuous media
`content for presentation to the user on the first
`computerized device set; and
`
`wherein the continuous media content is not
`presented on the second computerized device set
`during presentation on the first computerized device
`set, and the first user interface and the second user
`interface
`together comprise a unified media
`selection and presentation user interface, wherein
`the unified media selection and presentation user
`interface presents user input controls for selection
`of the continuous media content and for selection of
`either one of the first computerized device set and
`the second computerized device set for presentation
`of the continuous media content.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 164:22–165:6.
`B. Claim Construction
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct., 890 (mem.) (2016). Even under the
`rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are generally given
`their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those
`terms which are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent
`necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
`Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`Petitioner proposes we construe the term “unified media selection and
`presentation interface.” Pet. 7–8. The term appears in each of independent
`claims 1 and 58–60 in the phrase:
`the first user interface and the second user interface
`together comprise a unified media selection and
`presentation user interface, wherein the unified
`media selection and presentation user interface
`presents user input controls for selection of the
`continuous media content and for selection of either
`one of the first computerized device set and the
`second computerized device set for presentation of
`the continuous media content.
`
`E.g., Ex. 1001, 164:65–165:6 (emphasis added).
`Petitioner contends the term “unified” is not defined in the
`Specification, and does not appear in the Specification other than in the
`claims, and in the context of “unified messaging services” disclosed at
`column 103, lines 35 through 42. Pet. 8. Consequently, based on a
`dictionary definition of “unify,” Petitioner contends the term should be
`construed to mean “a coherent set of user interfaces for selecting media and
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`selecting a presentation device.” Id.; see also Ex. 1006, 1287 (defining
`“unify” to mean “to make into a unit or a coherent whole: UNITE”).
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction of
`the term “unified media selection and presentation interface,” and does not
`propose the construction of any terms.
`We agree with Petitioner that the term “unified media selection and
`presentation interface” does not appear in the Specification, other than in
`the claims. To determine the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term,
`we therefore look to its ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. As Petitioner notes, the
`ordinary and customary meaning of the term “unify” is “to make into a unit
`or a coherent whole: UNITE.” Ex. 1006, 1287. The ordinary and customary
`meaning of “unite” includes “to become one or as if one,” and “to act in
`concert.” Ex. 3001, 1291 (emphasis added). Thus, for purposes of this
`Decision, we construe the term “unified media selection and presentation
`interface” to mean one or more user interfaces that, together, present
`controls for selecting continuous media content and a continuous media
`content presentation device.
`C. Whether Chen Is Prior Art to the ’183 Patent
`The Chen patent was filed on May 14, 2002, and claims priority to
`Provisional Application No. 60/290,788 (“the ’788 provisional application”)
`filed on May 14, 2001. See Ex. 1003. Petitioner alleges “Chen is prior art
`under at least U.S.C. § 102(e) based on at least its domestic priority date of
`May 14, 2001.” Pet. 9.
`The ’183 patent was filed on October 26, 2012 as a continuation of an
`application filed on April 26, 2011, which is a continuation of an application
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`filed on May 8, 2003. See Ex. 1001. The ’183 patent claims priority,
`through these continuation applications, to three provisional applications,
`including Provisional Application No. 60/379,635 (“the ’635 provisional
`application”) filed on May 10, 2002. Id. Patent Owner alleges the priority
`date of the ’183 patent is the May 10, 2002 filing date of the ’635
`provisional application because “the provisional patent application is 283
`pages in length.” Prelim. Resp., 3.
`Patent Owner argues Chen is not entitled to claim priority to the ’788
`provisional application, allegedly because the ’788 provisional application
`“does not disclose all the subject matter that is disclosed in Chen (Ex.
`1003),” and because “[t]he length of the provisional Chen ‘788 as compared
`to Chen (Ex. 1003) is significantly smaller.” Prelim. Resp. 4. Therefore,
`Patent Owner argues, Chen is not prior art to the ’183 patent because Chen’s
`priority date is its May 14, 2002 filing date, which is after the claimed May
`10, 2002 priority date of the ’183 patent. Id. at 3.
`Section 119(e)(1)(pre-AIA) of Title 35 states:
`An application for patent filed under section 111(a)
`or section 363 of this title for an invention disclosed
`in the manner provided by section 112 of this title
`in a provisional application filed under section
`111(b) of this title, by an inventor or inventors
`named in the provisional application, shall have the
`same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on
`the date of the provisional application filed under
`section 111(b) of this title . . . .
`
`Consequently, “[a] reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of
`the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the
`provisional application provides support for the claims in the reference
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`patent in compliance with § 112, ¶ 1.” Dynamic Drinkware v. Nat’l
`Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has failed to prove Chen is
`entitled to claim priority to the ’788 provisional application because
`Petitioner has “failed to compare the claims of the [Chen] patent to the
`disclosure in the [Chen] provisional application.” Dynamic Drinkware, 800
`F.3d at 1381. Likewise, assuming the ’183 patent is entitled to claim
`priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to the May 8, 2003 filing date of its
`grandparent application, Patent Owner has failed to prove the ’183 patent is
`further entitled to claim priority to the ’635 provisional application for the
`same reason. Id.; see also Polaris Wireless, Inc. v. Trueposition, Inc., Case
`IPR2013-00323, slip op. at 29 (Paper 9) (“[T]he Patent Owner is not
`presumed to be entitled to the earlier filing dates of ancestral applications
`which do not share the same disclosure.”). Accordingly, for purposes of this
`decision, Chen’s priority date is its May 14, 2002 filing date; the ’183
`patent’s priority date is May 8, 2003; and Chen is available as prior art to the
`’183 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as Petitioner has alleged. See Pet. 9.
`D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–5, 16, 18, 24–26, 32–38, 40–42,
`49, 51–53, 55, and 58–61 over Chen and Elabbady
`Petitioner alleges claims 1–5, 16, 18, 24–26, 32–38, 40–42, 49, 51–53,
`55, and 58–61 of the ’183 patent would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) in view of the combination of Chen and Elabbady. Pet. 4. In
`particular, Petitioner alleges—to the extent Chen’s address resolution
`protocol (ARP) is not implemented at a discovery layer above an internet
`protocol layer—Elabbady teaches these elements. Pet. 16. Petitioner further
`alleges it would have been obvious to modify Chen’s ARP based discovery
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`protocol with Elabbady’s universal plug-and-play (UPnP) based discovery
`protocol because such a modification would simply substitute one known
`technique for another, and would provide zero-configuration networking to
`Chen’s control and video devices. Id. at 17.
`We have reviewed the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response, and are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–5, 16, 18, 24–26,
`32–38, 40–42, 49, 51–53, 55, and 58–61 over the combination of Chen and
`Elabbady.
`1. Overview of Chen (Ex. 1003)
`Chen discloses a system and method “for content-based non-linear
`control of video data playback.” Ex. 1003, 1:64–65. Figure 3 of Chen is
`reproduced below.
`
`Figure 3 of Chen is a schematic illustration of the topology of Chen’s
`networked system for non-linear control of video playback.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`Control device 212, multimedia server 222, video server 220, and
`
`video device 218 are interconnected via network 216. Ex. 1003, 4:44–5:67,
`Fig. 2. Control device 212 can be a personal digital assistant (PDA), tablet,
`palmtop, laptop, or desktop computer. Id. at 4:47–60. Control device 212
`“acts as a dynamic control pad for initiating video playback of content
`specific information,” and is “capable of inputting control command,
`communicating data, and playing multimedia data such as . . . still images,
`text, preview videos, or the like.” Id. at 4:47–53. Control device 212
`connects to network 216 using a wireless communications protocol such as
`Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11b. Id. at 4:55–57.
`Video device 218 includes a video display 316, “a video decoder 318
`which decodes compressed video data, and a video device network interface
`320 which interfaces the video display to the network.” Ex. 1003, 6:19–22.
`Video device 218 “may be a television monitor, computer monitor, or [a]
`similar device.” Id. at 5:4–7. Video device 218 may connect to network 216
`through a wireless connection. Id. at 5:10–11.
`Control device 212 provides a “Graphical User Interface (GUI), for
`display of information and solicitation of consumer input/instruction.” Ex.
`1003, 6:40–42. To control video playback on video device 218, “control
`device [212] generates URLs, which pass parameters to a CGI application
`running under the HTTP server on the video device.” Id. at 6:43–47. The
`passed parameters include a URL (MediaURL) pointing to the video to be
`displayed, and an IP address (VideoDevice) identifying the video device 218
`on which the video is to be displayed. Id. at 6:49–54.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`
`Figures 4 and 7 of Chen are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 of Chen is an illustration of a GUI allowing a user to select a video
`device on which video data is to be displayed. Id. at 7:4–5. Figure 7 of
`Chen is an illustration of a GUI for displaying a list of videos that can be
`selected for display on a selected video device. Id. at 7:60–8:10. The
`caption at the top of the GUI shown in Figure 4 of Chen reads “[t]his page is
`used to specify a video device for viewing multimedia.” The GUI includes a
`drop-down list of video devices that can be selected for displaying videos.
`The list can be determined using ARP. Id. at 7:23–25. The list preferably
`includes “all available video devices to which the consumer has access,” and
`may include “a predetermined list of device names maintained on a server,”
`as well as “names entered by the consumer” or previously selected by the
`consumer. Id. at 7:13–20.
`2. Overview of Elabbady (Ex. 1004)
`Elabbady discloses “methods and systems for sharing media content
`between various devices.” Ex. 1004, 1:14–17. Figure 2A of Elabbady is
`reproduced below.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2A of Elabbady is a block diagram of a media content sharing
`environment.
`
`Device 202, connected to devices 206a-d via network 204, provides a
`media cataloguing service 203 to devices 206a-d. Ex. 1004, 5:24–29.
`Network 204 can be established using “a Universal Plug-and-Play (UPnP)
`protocol that provides a peer-to-peer network capability that can support
`various devices through wired and/or wireless connections.” Id. at 5:54–58.
`Devices 202 and 206a-d can be any “variety of different devices that can be
`used to provide features/capabilities associated with sharing media content.”
`Id. at 5:66–7:2. These can include PCs, laptops, desktops, notebooks,
`tablets, PDAs, digital TVs, DVDs, set-top boxes and the like. Id. at 3:23–
`46. Media content refers to “any form of information that may be shared,
`processed, and/or played or otherwise reproduced,” and can include audio,
`video, and multimedia data. Id. at 6:66–7:5. Any of devices 202 and 206a-d
`can play media content. Id. at 8:57–62.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`
`Devices 202 and 206a-d can also be coupled to media server 210 that
`includes database 212 of shareable media content. Ex. 1004, 5:32–45. Any
`of devices 206a-d, such as device 206a, can query media catalog 203 on
`device 202, and the URL of a media item responsive to the query is returned
`to device 206a. See, e.g., id. at 9:47–51, 10:11–22. Device 206a can use the
`URL to get the media item from media server 210. Id. at 10:24–38.
`3. Comparison of Claims 1–5, 16, 18, 24–26, 32–38, 40–42, 49, 51–
`53, 55, and 58–61 to the Combination of Chen and Elabbady
`Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of showing that claims
`1–5, 16, 18, 24–26, 32–38, 40–42, 49, 51–53, 55, and 58–61 would have
`been obvious over the combination of Chen and Elabbady. See Pet. 9–37.
`For example, claim 1 recites a method for use in a second
`computerized device set configured for wireless communication with a first
`computerized device set, and requires making available to a user a first user
`interface that allows the user to select a continuous media content to be
`presented to the user, wherein the continuous media content includes a set of
`encoded video data. Ex. 1001, 164:22–32. Figure 7 of Chen discloses
`presenting a first user interface on control device 212 (second computerized
`device set) to allow a user to select an encoded video. See Pet. 11–12, 19;
`Ex. 1003, 3:36–38, 7:60–8:10, Fig. 7.
`Claim 1 requires making available to the user a second user interface
`that allows the user to select to have the continuous media content presented
`on either one of the first and second computerized device sets. Ex. 1001,
`164:33–36. Figure 4 of Chen discloses presenting a second user interface on
`control device 212 to allow a user to select a video device from among a list
`of video devices. See Pet. 11–12, 19–20; Ex. 1003, 7:4–20, Fig. 4. The list
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`includes “all video devices to which the consumer has access,” including the
`names of devices entered by the user. Ex. 1003, 7:13–20. Chen discloses
`that control device 212 (second computerized device set) is a video device
`because it is capable of playing videos, and further discloses that control
`device 212 is capable of selecting other video devices 218 (first
`computerized device sets) to play videos. See Pet. 21–22; Ex. 1003: 4:47–
`53, 5:58–62.
`Claim 1 requires receiving discovery information from a device
`management discovery protocol implemented at a communication layer
`above an internet protocol layer that allows the second computerized device
`set to determine that the first computerized device set is capable of receiving
`and playing the continuous media content. Ex. 1001, 164:37–45. The
`discovery management protocol can be, for example, UPnP protocol. Id. at
`37:35–55. Chen discloses identifying a list of video devices 18 (first
`computerized device sets) using a protocol similar to ARP. See Pet. 16; Ex.
`1003, 7:23–25. Elabbady discloses using UPnP to set up an ad-hoc network
`among video playing device 202 (second computerized device set) and video
`playing devices 206 (first computerized device sets). See Pet. 16, 20–21;
`Ex. 1004, 5:24–31, 5:46–65.
`Claim 1 requires presenting the continuous media content on the
`second computerized device set when the user selects the second media
`device set using the second user interface. Ex. 1001, 164:46–51. Chen
`discloses playing a selected video on a video device that has been selected
`from a list of video devices. See Pet. 11–12, 21–22; Ex. 1003, Fig. 4. The
`list includes “all video devices to which the consumer has access.” Ex.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`1003, 7:13–20. Chen further discloses control device 212 is a video device
`because it is capable of playing videos. See Pet. 21–22; Ex. 1003, 4:47–53.
`Claim 1 requires wirelessly transmitting a resource indicator,
`comprising at least one of a URL, URI, and URN, from the second
`computerized device set to the first computerized device set when the user
`selects presenting the continuous media content on the first computerized
`device set using the second user interface. Ex. 1001, 164:52–62. Chen
`discloses control device 212 (second computerized device set) uses wireless
`communication protocols to communicate over a network with video devices
`218 (first computerized device sets), and initiates control of video data
`playback on video devices by “generat[ing] URLs, which pass parameters to
`a CGI application running under the HTTP server on the video device.” Ex.
`1003, 4:55–58, 6:43–54, 8:21–25; see also Pet. 12–14, 22–23.
`Finally, claim 1 requires the first user interface and the second user
`interface to together comprise a unified media selection and presentation
`user interface presenting user input controls for selection of the continuous
`media content and for selection of either one of the first computerized device
`set and the second computerized device set for presentation of the
`continuous media content. Ex. 1001, 164:63–165:6. Chen discloses that
`together, the user interfaces shown in Figures 4 and 7 present controls for
`selecting continuous media content and a continuous media content
`presentation device. See Pet. 12, 23; Ex. 1003, 5:58–62, 6:38–43, 7:4–11,
`8:7–10, Figs. 4, 7, 8.
`Similarly to claim 1, discussed above, Petitioner demonstrates a
`reasonable likelihood of showing claims 2–5, 16, 18, 24–26, 32–38, 40–42,
`49, 51–53, 55, and 58–61 are unpatentable over the combination of Chen
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`and Elabbady. See Pet. 9–37.
`Patent Owner argues the combination of Chen and Elabbady fails to
`disclose the second user interface that allows a user to select to have
`continuous media content presented on either one of the first and second
`computerized device sets, as required by independent claims 1, 59, and 60,
`and fails to disclose the user interface required in independent claim 58
`having similar functionality. Prelim. Resp., 6–7, 12–15.
`In particular, Patent Owner argues Chen fails to disclose this
`limitation because Figure 4 of Chen “only allows selection of video devices
`218, but does not allow the selection of the control device 212.” Prelim.
`Resp. 7. According to Patent Owner, because the caption in the upper
`portion of Chen’s Figure 4 reads “this page is used to specify a video device
`for viewing multimedia,” Chen can only select “one of the video devices
`218, which does not include the control device 212.” Id. at 9. Patent Owner
`contends this interpretation is confirmed by Chen’s description of Figure 4,
`which reads:
`Fig. 4 illustrates an exemplary control device screen
`for specifying the video device that is to be
`controlled. The control device provides an input
`field 410 for the consumer to specify the video
`device that is to be controlled. In this example, the
`user has entered the video device name “NTV1”.
`Also provided is a connection button 412, which
`upon selection, instructs the control device that the
`video device indicated in the input field is to be
`provided video data.
`
`Id. (quoting Ex. 1003, 7:4–10).
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. We agree with
`Patent Owner that the caption in the upper portion of Chen’s Figure 4 reads
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`“this page is used to specify a video device for viewing multimedia.”
`Ex. 1003, Fig. 4. However, nothing in that caption limits the list of
`selectable video devices in Figure 4 to video devices 218, or excludes
`control device 212. Rather, Chen discloses Figure 4’s list of video devices
`consists of “all available video devices to which the consumer has access,”
`including “names entered by the consumer or selected previously.”
`Ex. 1003, 7:13–20. Moreover, Chen discloses control device 212 is a video
`device to which the consumer has access because it is “capable of . . .
`playing multimedia data such as . . . preview videos.” Id. at 4:50–53.
`
`Patent Owner also argues the combination of Chen and Elabbady fails
`to disclose a wireless communication session between the first and second
`computerized device sets as required by claim 60. Prelim. Resp. 13–14.
`According to Patent Owner, because Petitioner’s claim chart for claim 60
`only cites to Chen for wirelessly connecting control device 212 to network
`access point 218, “Chen is deficient at describing a ‘wireless communication
`session’ between the 1st CDS [computerized device set] and the 2nd CDS as
`required by . . . claim 60 of the ‘183 Patent.” Id. at 14.
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Claim 60 recites
`a method for use in a first computerized device set, and requires establishing
`a wireless communication session with a second computerized device set.
`Ex. 1001, 170:6–10, 170:20–21. The ’183 patent does not define the term
`“wireless communication session,” and does not use the term other than in
`claim 60. Chen discloses control device 212 (second computerized device
`set) connects to network 216 using various wireless protocols such as
`Bluetooth and IEEE 802.11b. See Pet. 10; Ex. 1003, 4:55–58. Chen further
`discloses video devices 218 (first computerized device sets) connect to
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`network 216 through a wireless connection. See Pet. 12; Ex. 1003, 5:9–12.
`Elabbady discloses wirelessly connecting device 202 (second computerized
`device set) with devices 206 (first computerized device sets) using UPnP
`protocol to establish a wireless peer-to-peer network. See Pet. 16; Ex. 1004,
`5:23–31, 5:46–65, 9:53–60, 10:11–16. Any node in a wireless peer-to-peer
`network can establish a wireless communication session with any other node
`in the network. See Ex. 3002, 804 (defining a peer-to-peer communication
`as a “[c]ommunication between two or more network nodes in which either
`node can initiate sessions”).
`Accordingly, we are persuaded, on this record, that Petitioner has
`shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the
`unpatentability of claims 1–5, 16, 18, 24–26, 32–38, 40–42, 49, 51–53, 55,
`and 58–61 over the combination of Chen and Elabbady.
`E. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1, 16, 18, 24, 32, 33, 37, 38, 41,
`and 58–60 over Meade and Elabbady
`Petitioner alleges claims 1, 16, 18, 24, 32, 33, 37, 38, 41, and 58–61
`of the ’183 patent would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Meade and Elabbady. Pet. 4. We have reviewed the Petition and Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response, and are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing the unpatentability of
`claims 1, 16, 18, 24, 32, 33, 37, 38, 41, and 58–61 over the combination of
`Meade and Elabbady.
`1. Overview of Meade (Ex. 1005)
`Meade discloses an appliance control system consisting of “an
`appliance and a mobile computing device configured for controlling the
`appliance.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 8. Figure 1 of Meade is reproduced below.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00047
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of Meade’s appliance control system.
`Mobile computing device 12 is configured “to supply content 16 from
`mobile computing device 12 (or from another source as controlled by mobile
`computing device 12) to appliance 13 for performance by appliance 13.”
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 32. Appliance 13 can be an audio device, video device,
`computer, or mobile phone. Id. ¶ 34. Mobile computing device 12 can be a
`PDA, handheld computer or laptop computer. Id. ¶ 41. To control
`appliance 13, mobile computing device 12 first selects appliance 13 as an
`appliance it wishes to control, and then establishes wireless communications
`with appliance 13. Id. ¶ 35. Mobile computing device 12 then
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
