IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`James M. Barton, et al.
`In re Patent of:
`6,233,389 Attorney Docket No.: 39843-0037IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`May 15, 2001
`
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 09/126,071
`
`Filing Date:
`July 30, 1998
`
`Title:
`Multimedia Time Warping System
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 6,233,389 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR .......................................................................... 5
`A. Grounds for Standing ................................................................................ 5
`B. Challenge and Relief Requested ............................................................... 6
`III. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 8
`A. Overview of the ’389 Patent ..................................................................... 8
`B. Prior Art .................................................................................................. 11
`C. Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3) ............................ 13
`IV. APPLICATION OF PRIOR ART TO CHALLENGED CLAIMS .............. 18
`A. GROUND 1: Claims 31 and 61 are Anticipated under § 102(b) by
`Sampat (client-side) ................................................................................ 19
`B. GROUND 2: Claims 31 and 61 are Obvious under § 103 over Sampat
`(client-side) in view of VfW and SoundBlaster ..................................... 51
`C. GROUND 3: Claims 31 and 61 are Anticipated under § 102(b) by
`Sampat (server-side) ............................................................................... 56
`D. GROUND 4: Claims 31 and 61 are Obvious under § 103 over Sampat
`(server-side) in view of VfW, SoundBlaster, and Gerber ...................... 86
`Secondary Considerations ............................................................................. 92
`V.
`VI. Redundancy ................................................................................................... 93
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 93
`VIII. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ......................... 95
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................. 95
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ....................................... 95
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................... 96
`D. Service Information ................................................................................ 96
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SE1001
`
`SE1002
`
`SE1003
`
`SE1004
`
`SE1005
`
`SE1006
`
`SE1007
`
`SE1008
`
`SE1009
`
`SE1010
`
`SE1011
`
`SE1012
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,233,389 to Barton et al. (“the ’389 patent”)
`
`Prosecution History of the ’389 patent (Serial No. 09/126,071)
`
`Declaration of Declaration of John M. Strawn, Ph.D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,557,724 to Sampat et al. (“Sampat”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,710,895 to Gerber et al. (“Gerber”)
`
`Sound Blaster Pro User Reference Manual (1991)
`(“SoundBlaster”)
`
`Programmer’s Guide, Microsoft Video for Windows
`Development Kit (February 1993) (“VfW”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,546,103 to Rhodes et al. (“Rhodes”)
`
`Definition of “Capture”, Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current
`English (1990)
`
`Definition of “Capture (of data)”, Webster's New World
`Dictionary of Computer Terms (1988)
`
`Claim Construction Order, TiVo Inc. v. Echostar
`Communications Corp., et al., 2:04-cv-00001 (8/18/2005)
`
`Claim Construction Order, TiVo, Inc. v. AT&T Inc., et al., 2:09-
`cv-00259 (10/13/2011)
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`SE1013
`
`SE1014
`
` SE1015
`
`SE1016
`
`SE1017
`
`SE1018
`
`SE1019
`
`SE1020
`
`SE1021
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`Claim Construction Order, TiVo, Inc. v. Verizon Comm’n, Inc.
`et al., 2:09-cv-00257 (3/12/2012)
`
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Motorola Mobility, Inc. et al.
`v. TiVo, Inc., 5:11-cv-00053 (12/06/2012)
`
`Exhibit A, Preliminary Infringement Claim Chart for U.S. Pat.
`No. 6,233,389, Samsung Mobile Devices (“Infringement
`Contentions”)
`
`Prosecution History of Ex Parte Reexamination of claims 1, 3-
`5, 15-18, 20-25, 32, 34-36, 46-49, and 51-55 of the ’389 patent
`(Serial No. 90/007750) (“First Reexam”)
`
`Prosecution History of Ex Parte Reexamination of claims 31
`and 61 of the ’389 patent (Serial No. 90/009329) (“Second
`Reexam”
`
`Bescos, Jesus et al., From Multimedia Stream Models to GUI
`Generation (1997) (“Bescos”)
`
`Screen capture of Amazon.com listing for Sound Blaster Pro
`User Reference Manual (accessed July 8, 2016)
`
`Musser, John, A Multimedia Class Library for Windows, Dr.
`Dobb’s Journal (July 1993) (“Musser”)
`
`Adams, Eric J., High Noon: Big Players Ready for Video
`Showdown, MacWEEK (Dec. 14, 1992 ) (“Adams”)
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(collectively “Petitioner”) petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 31
`
`and 61 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389 (“the ’389
`
`patent”). The ’389 patent is titled “Multimedia Time Warping System” and
`
`“relates to the real time capture, storage, and display of television broadcast
`
`signals.” SE1001, 1:6-9. The ’389 patent includes 61 claims. Most of those
`
`claims are directed to “television (TV) broadcast signals” and specific features
`
`related thereto (see SE1001, cl. 1-30, 32-60) and are not subject to this IPR
`
`petition.
`
`This petition relates only to claims 31 and 61 of the ’389 patent. During
`
`prosecution of the application that resulted in the ’389 patent, claims 31 and 61
`
`received a first action allowance. SE1002, 1007, 111. The stated reason for
`
`allowance merely recited all claim elements. SE1002, 111.
`
`The ’389 patent also was reexamined twice. See SE1016; SE1017. The first
`
`reexamination challenged unrelated claims—not claims 31 and 61. SE1016, 1. In
`
`the second reexamination, claims 31 and 61 were challenged and ultimately
`
`confirmed patentable over the art cited in the reexamination request. SE1017, 1,
`
`1336. The stated reason for allowance was that the cited references “do not teach
`
`or render obvious a transform object that automatically flow controls source and
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`sink objects as claimed.” SE1017, 1340. In discussing automatic flow control by a
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`transform object, the examiner credited expert testimony and explained:
`
`This architecture is “self-regulating” with respect to the flow of data
`down the pipeline as noted at column 8, lines 47-51 and column 21,
`lines 24-25. In other words, the transform object is not merely self-
`regulating in an abstract sense. Rather, it controls the flow of data
`through the pipeline. (Villasenor at 7) Hence, the automatic flow
`control can be thought of as intelligent.
`
`SE1017, 1336-1337 (emphasis added). The examiner then distinguished the cited
`
`references, stating: “Thomason just manages buffers in a reactive way in response
`
`to the flow. There is no disclosure in Thomason of the kind of intelligent
`
`management performed by the recited centralized transform object architecture as
`
`disclosed in the ’389 patent.” SE1017, 1339 (emphasis added).
`
`As described throughout this petition, U.S. Patent 5,557,724 to Sampat
`
`(“Sampat”) describes a system with a centralized transform object, which
`
`intelligently controls the flow data. SE1004. For example, Sampat describes a
`
`“Media Services Manager” as its transform object, stating: “Media services
`
`manager (MSM) 1608 manages the flow of data through server software
`
`architecture 1512” by regulating “buffer” passing between the “source” and the
`
`“sink” objects. SE1004, 9:10-26, 9:57-10:7, 10:26-29, 14:43-54, 15:41-17:28,
`
`18:28-54. Indeed, FIGS. 19 and 20 (reproduced below) illustrate “the flow of
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`data” through Sampat’s server and client, showing that each includes a central
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`“MSM” that automatically controls flow by passing “source buffers” and “sink
`
`buffers.” SE1004, 17:8-67.
`
`
`
`SE1001, FIG. 19 (annotated).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`
`
`SE1001, FIG. 20 (annotated).
`
`Therefore, Sampat discloses the only feature relied on by the CRU examiner
`
`in confirming claims 31 and 61. In fact, as detailed throughout this petition,
`
`Sampat discloses all elements of claims 31 and 61 of the ’389 patent, including the
`
`claimed physical data source, and the source, sink, transform, and control objects.
`
`SE1004, SE1004, 2:10-16, 4:7-25, 7:59-8:22, 9:10-12, 9:37-53, 13:59-63, 14:33-
`
`54, 17:8-44, FIGS. 16-20; SE1003, ¶¶26-220.
`
`Sampat was never cited during prosecution, was never cited during the first
`
`reexamination, and was not cited during the second reexamination prior to the
`
`Notice of Intent to Issue the Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate. See SE1002 and
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`SE1016, passim; see SE1017, 1-1352. Patent Owner attempted to cite Sampat as
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`part of an IDS of one hundred new references after the Notice of Intent to Issue the
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate. SE1017, 1356. The IDS was deemed an
`
`“untimely paper” and was “expunged.” SE1017, 1357. Patent Owner attempted to
`
`file the IDS again, along with a petition. SE1017, 1359-1370, 1470-1474. The
`
`petition was dismissed and the IDS was not considered. SE1017, 1481. Patent
`
`Owner was invited to “file a new request for reexamination for consideration of
`
`such reference(s)” (SE1017, 1481), but Patent Owner never did so. Accordingly,
`
`Sampat was never considered during prosecution or reexamination, alone or in
`
`combination with the other references cited herein.
`
`While Patent Owner never acted on the suggestion in the Decision On
`
`Petition to file a new request to have Sampat considered, Petitioner does so now in
`
`inter partes review and asks the Board to find the ’389 patent unpatentable as
`
`anticipated by Sampat, or as obvious over Sampat and the additional references
`
`cited below.
`
`II. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR
`
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ’389 patent is available for IPR. This petition is
`
`being filed within one year of service of a complaint against Petitioner on
`
`9/8/2015. Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting review of the
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`Challenged Claims.
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`B. Challenge and Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds in the table
`
`below, as explained in this petition and in SE1003, the Declaration of John
`
`Michael Strawn, Ph.D.
`
`Ground
`Ground 1
`
`Basis
`’389 Claims
`31 and 61 Anticipated by Sampat (client-side)
`
`Ground 2
`
`31 and 61 Obvious over Sampat (client -side), VfW,
`
`SoundBlaster, and Gerber
`
`Ground 3
`
`31 and 61 Anticipated by Sampat (server-side)
`
`Ground 4
`
`31 and 61 Obvious over Sampat (server-side), VfW,
`
`SoundBlaster, and Gerber
`
`The earliest proclaimed priority date of the ’389 patent is July 30, 1998 (the
`
`“Critical Date”). Each reference pre-dates this and qualifies as prior art:
`
`Reference
`
`Date
`
`Sampat
`
`9/17/1996 (issued)
`
`SoundBlaster
`
`1991 (published)
`
`VfW
`
`1993 (published)
`
`Section
`
`102(b)
`
`102(b)
`
`102(b)
`
`6
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`Reference
`
`Date
`
`Gerber
`
`10/31/1996 (filed)
`
`Section
`
`102(e)
`
`
`
`
`
`SoundBlaster contains a copyright notice indicating publication in 1991.
`
`SE1006, 2; Ford Motor Co. v. Cruise Control Techs. LLC, IPR2014-00291, Paper
`
`44 at p. 8 (PTAB June 29, 2015) (citing Joseph S. Dubin, The Universal Copyright
`
`Convention, 42 Cal. L. Rev. 89, 103 (1954)) (“a copyright notice bearing the
`
`symbol ‘©’ provides some evidence of a date of publication . . . [because] such
`
`markings generally indicate the ‘first year of publication.’”). This publication date
`
`is confirmed by an Amazon.com web listing also indicating publication in 1991—
`
`more than a year before the Critical Date. SE1019, 1; see also SE1004, 4:56-57
`
`(identifying existence of SoundBlaster before 1993).
`
`VfW contains a copyright notice indicating publication in 1992 and 1993.
`
`SE1007, 2; Ford Motor Co., IPR2014-00291, Paper 44, p. 8 (PTAB June 29,
`
`2015). This publication date is confirmed by Musser, which explains that
`
`Microsoft Video for Windows and the associated .zip file containing the
`
`Programmer’s Guide for Microsoft Video for Windows Development Kit (“VfW”)
`
`was publicly distributed by 1993. SE1020, 2; see also SE1021, 1-2; SE1004,
`
`14:10-12 (identifying the “Microsoft Video for Windows” as existing by 1993).
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`The publication date of VfW is also confirmed by Rhodes, a patent filed in 1993..
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`SE1008, 29:5-13.
`
`III. BACKGROUND
`A. Overview of the ’389 Patent
`The ’389 patent “relates to the real time capture, storage, and display of
`
`television broadcast signals.” SE1001, 1:6-9. FIG. 1 provides a “high level view”
`
`of the ’389 patent’s system. SE1001, 2:44-45.
`
`
`
`SE1001, FIG. 1.
`
`Within that framework, claims 31 and 61 are directed to operations that
`
`control movement of data through the ’389 patent’s system as performed by three
`
`conceptual components - Sources, Transforms, and Sinks.
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`SE1001, FIG. 8.
`
`As shown below in FIG. 9, the ’389 patent describes the use of a “source
`
`object” 901, “transform object” 902, and “sink object” 903. SE1001, 8:9-18, FIG.
`
`9. A “control object” 917 accepts user commands. SE1001, 9:25-32.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`
`
`SE1001, FIG. 9 (annotated).
`
`The ’389 patent describes the source object calling the transform object for a
`
`buffer to fill. SE1001, 8:45-48. The transform object provides the empty buffer to
`
`the source object and then takes the full buffer from the source object and stores it
`
`on a storage device. SE1001, 9:2-9. The sink object calls the transform object for a
`
`full buffer and then sends the data to a decoder. SE1001, 9:10-16. It then releases
`
`the empty buffer to the transform object for use again by the source object.
`
`SE1001, 8:55-59.
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`Under this system, the source object waits for the transform object to
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`provide an empty buffer. Similarly, the sink object also waits for the transform
`
`object to provide a full buffer. According to the ’389 patent, “[t]his means that the
`
`pipeline is self-regulating; it has automatic flow control.” SE1001, 8:48-49.
`
`Prior Art
`
`B.
`Sampat discloses a system for processing data streams, which is represented
`
`at its highest level in Figure 1, showing input devices 108, 110, and 112, a server
`
`102, and clients 104.
`
`SE1004, FIG. 1. Sampat discloses source, sink, and transform objects in both its
`
`server and its clients. For example, Figure 16 of Sampat (below) shows a source
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`object colored green (source MSPs), a sink object colored blue (sink MSPs), and a
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`transform object colored brown (media services manager).
`
`
`
`SE1004, FIG. 16 (annotated).
`
`Sampat’s transform object (MSM 1608) clearly performs automatic flow
`
`control, as Sampat explains: “Media services manager (MSM) 1608 manages the
`
`flow of data through server software architecture 1512.” SE1004, 9:10-26
`
`(emphasis added). In addition to automatic flow control, Sampat also discloses the
`
`features of server 102 and client 104 performing the other functional elements
`
`found in claims 31 and 61, as further described below.
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`To the extent that any element of claims 31 and 61 are found to not be
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`explicitly described by Sampat, such features and functionality were conventional
`
`and well-known. For example, Sampat discloses that its preferred embodiment
`
`includes certain well-known components, including: “Intel® SmartVideo®
`
`Recorder (ISVR),” “SoundBlaster Pro from Creative Labs,” and “Microsoft Video
`
`for Windows.” SE1004, SE1004, 4:56-57, 8:25-27, 14:10-12. To the extent that
`
`Sampat does not describe one or more details of these devices, such details were
`
`well-known and described in contemporaneous publications. For example, Gerber
`
`describes the Intel Smart Video Recorder in further detail. SE1005, 5:10-16, 5:20-
`
`60, FIG. 3; SE1003, ¶¶31, 132. SoundBlaster describes details of the same
`
`SoundBlaster device preferred by Sampat. SE1006, 10, 20, 146, 152-153, 158;
`
`SE1003, ¶¶31, 79. VfW describes details of Microsoft Video for Windows.
`
`SE1007, 8, 157-211; SE1003, ¶¶31, 78.
`
`C. Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`The broadest reasonable construction/interpretation (“BRI”) is applied
`
`herein.1 In prior court proceedings (where Petitioner was not a party), Patent
`
`
`1 The claim construction standard for district court (“ordinary and customary
`
`meaning”) is different than the BRI standard applied in IPR. Due to the different
`
`standards, disclosure of the references identified by Petitioner as teaching a claim
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`Owner proposed and a district court adopted constructions on over twenty terms
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`from claims 31 and 61 of the ’389 patent. See SE1011-SE1014 (construing some
`
`terms and applying plain meaning for others); see also TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar
`
`Commc'ns Corp., 516 F.3d 1290, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (endorsing the
`
`constructions of the appealed terms of the ’389 patent as being “soundly based”).
`
`Accordingly, the BRI for these claim terms is at least as broad as the constructions
`
`proposed by Patent Owner and adopted—Patent Owner cannot credibly dispute
`
`this point. These terms include:
`
`Claim Term
`
`BRI Construction
`
`Preamble
`
`Not limiting.
`
`SE1014, 82; SE1001, 14:53-54, 17:3-4; SE1003, ¶36.
`
`“Object”
`
`“a collection of data and operations.”
`
`SE1014, 91-98; SE1001, 8:39-65, 9:23-47; SE1003, ¶36.
`
`
`term of the ’389 patent is not an admission that the claim term is met by any
`
`disclosure for infringement purposes, or that the claim term is enabled or meets the
`
`requirements for written description.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`“source object”
`
`“a collection of data and operations that (1) extracts video
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`
`
`and audio data from a physical data source, (2) obtains a
`
`buffer [memory where data can be temporarily stored for
`
`transfer] from a transform object, (3) converts video data into
`
`data streams, and (4) fills the buffer [memory where data can
`
`be temporarily stored for transfer] with the streams.”
`
`SE1014, 91-98; SE1001, 8:39-51; SE1003, ¶36.
`
`“sink object”
`
`“a collection of data and operations that (1) obtains data
`
`stream buffers [memory where data can be temporarily
`
`stored for transfer] from a transform object and (2) outputs
`
`the streams to a video and audio decoder.”
`
`SE1014, 91-98; SE1001, 8:52-65; SE1003, ¶36.
`
`“control object”
`
`“a collection of data and operations that receives commands
`
`from a user that control the flow of broadcast data.”
`
`SE1014, 91-98; SE1001, 9:23-47; SE1003, ¶36.
`
`“buffer”
`
`“memory where data can be temporarily stored for transfer”
`
`SE1014, 9; SE1001, 2:16-17, 4:55-6:15; SE1003, ¶36.
`
`“transform
`
`“a collection of data and operations that transforms the form
`
`object”
`
`of data upon which it operates.”
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`SE1014, 101-106; SE1001, 7:48-8:65; SE1003, ¶36.
`
`“automatically
`
`“self-regulated”
`
`flow
`
`SE1014, 101-106; SE1001, 8:19-65; SE1003, ¶36.
`
`controlled”
`
`“wherein said
`
`“wherein said source object is self-regulated by said
`
`source object is
`
`transform object”
`
`automatically
`
`SE1014, 101-106; SE1001, 8:39-51; SE1003, ¶36.
`
`flow controlled
`
`by said transform
`
`object”
`
`“wherein said
`
`“wherein said sink object is self-regulated by said transform
`
`sink object is
`
`object”
`
`automatically
`
`SE1014, 101-106; SE1001, 8:52-65; SE1003, ¶36.
`
`flow controlled
`
`by said transform
`
`object”
`
`“wherein said
`
`“wherein the source object obtains video and audio data from
`
`source object
`
`said physical data source”
`
`extracts video
`
`SE1014, 98-101; SE1001, 8:43-45; SE1003, ¶36.
`
`16
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`
`
`and audio data
`
`from said
`
`physical data
`
`source”
`
`“control the flow
`
`“control the flow of the broadcast data within the system”
`
`of the broadcast
`
`SE1014, 109-111; SE1001, 8:19-65; SE1003, ¶36.
`
`data through the
`
`system”
`
`“wherein said
`
`“the control object sends information relating to a change of
`
`control object
`
`condition in the flow of the broadcast data to the source,
`
`sends flow
`
`transform and sink objects.”
`
`command events
`
`SE1013, 16-17; SE1001, 9:22-47; SE1003, ¶36.
`
`to said source,
`
`transform, and
`
`sink objects”
`
`“parses”
`
`“analyzes”
`
`SE1014, 82-88; SE1001, 5:3-9, 6:37-46; SE1003, ¶36.
`
`“parses video and
`
`“analyzes video and audio data from the broadcast data”
`
`audio data from
`
`SE1014, 82-88; SE1001, 5:3-9, 6:37-46; SE1003, ¶36.
`
`17
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`said broadcast
`
`data”
`
`“physical data
`
`“hardware and software that parses video and audio data
`
`source”
`
`from said broadcast data”
`
`SE1014, 109-111; SE1001, 8:43-45; SE1003, ¶36.
`
`“accepts
`
`“accepts data that was transmitted”
`
`broadcast data”
`
`SE1014, 109-111, 3:30-61; SE1003, ¶36.
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim terms not specifically construed above were interpreted under the
`
`BRI. SE1003, ¶38.
`
`IV. APPLICATION OF PRIOR ART TO CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`As detailed above (incorporated herein) and below, this request shows a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on the Challenged Claims.
`
`As mentioned above at Section II.A., claims 31 and 61 are primarily directed
`
`to software objects (i.e., source, sink, transform, and control objects) that control
`
`movement of data. Sampat discloses these claimed software objects in two
`
`components of its system: (1) server 102 and (2) client 104. Although operation of
`
`Sampat’s server 102 and operation of Sampat’s client 104 each meet the claimed
`
`features in a similar manner, they do so with different structure. As a consequence
`
`and for sake of clarity, Petitioner has addressed operation of Sampat’s server 102
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`in separate grounds from operation of Sampat’s client 104. Specifically, this
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`petition first addresses the patentability of claims 31 and 61 from the point of view
`
`of Sampat’s client 104 (Grounds 1 and 2). SE1003 at ¶¶39-119. Then, this
`
`petition addresses the patentability of claims 31 and 61 from the point of view of
`
`Sampat’s server 102 (Grounds 3 and 4). SE1003 at ¶¶120-217.
`
`A. GROUND 1: Claims 31 and 61 are Anticipated under §
`102(b) by Sampat (client-side)
`
`Claims 31 and 61, and all of their claim elements, are taught by Sampat. As
`
`explained above, Ground 1 addresses Sampat when viewed from Sampat’s client
`
`104. For Ground 1, Figure 1 has been annotated below to schematically show that
`
`the source, sink, transform, and control objects are in the client 104, while the
`
`input devices and physical data source are upstream of the client 104.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`SE1004, FIG. 1 (annotated for Ground 1). Figures 18 and 20, reproduced below,
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`show the source, transform, sink, and control objects within the software
`
`architecture of client 104.
`
`SE1004, FIG. 20 (annotated).
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`
`
`SE1004, FIG. 18 (annotated). Claims 31 and 61 are identical, except that claim 31
`
`is a process claim, which adds the word “providing” for five claim elements and
`
`also modifies the preamble slightly. Accordingly, claims 31 and 61 will be
`
`considered at the same time, with corresponding elements addressed together.
`
`[31.Pre] A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia
`data, comprising the steps of:
`
`[61.Pre] An apparatus for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia
`data, comprising:
`
`21
`
`

`
`
`
`The preamble of claims 31 and 61 are not limiting. A preamble is limiting
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`only “when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim,
`
`or, if the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the
`
`claim.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1999). In this case, the preamble of claims 31 and 61 do not recite limitations
`
`of the claims and are not necessary to give life, meaning, or vitality to the claims—
`
`they can be understood without the preamble. Indeed, none of the claim elements
`
`have antecedents in the preamble. Moreover, Patent Owner has already “agreed
`
`that the preambles of Claims 31 and 61 of the ’389 patent are not limiting.”
`
`SE1014, 82. Accordingly, the preambles of claims 31 and 61 are not limiting.
`
`Even if the preamble were limiting, Sampat discloses an apparatus and
`
`corresponding process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia
`
`data. SE1004, 13:59-63 (“Client 104 also supports the recording of data from the
`
`network to mass storage device 1716 with or without concurrent playing of the
`
`multicast data”); see also 2:10-16. SE1003, ¶45.
`
`While the preamble of claim 61 refers to “[a]n apparatus,” the term
`
`“apparatus” does not exclude an electrically-connected system. For example,
`
`claim element [61.n] refers to “the system”—showing that claim 61 uses the terms
`
`“apparatus” and “system” interchangeably. See also SE1014, 109-111 (construing
`
`that claim element to cover “control the flow of the broadcast data within the
`
`22
`
`

`
`
`system”) (emphasis added). Similarly, claim 54 (which is not in dispute here)
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`claims an “apparatus” which includes the separate component of a VCR. SE1001,
`
`17:7-12. Accordingly, even if the preamble of claim 61 were limiting, which it is
`
`not, Sampat’s multicast system 100 is an “apparatus” and a “system” within the
`
`meaning of claim 61, especially under BRI.
`
`[31.a] providing2 [61.a] a physical data source,
`
`Sampat discloses providing a physical data source. SE1003, ¶¶46-56. The
`
`BRI of “physical data source” includes “hardware and software that parses video
`
`and audio data from said broadcast data.” SE1014, 109-111; SE1001, 8:43-45.
`
`The BRI of “parses video and audio data from said broadcast data” includes
`
`“analyzes video and audio data from the broadcast data.” SE1014, 82-88; SE1001,
`
`5:3-9, 6:37-46.
`
`As viewed from the client-side, Sampat discloses a physical data source in
`
`the form of server 102, which includes hardware and software. SE1004, 4:7-25.
`
`Figure 1, reproduced below, shows the physical data source (blue).
`
`
`2 The term “providing” appears only in claim 31, with all other terms common.
`
`23
`
`

`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`
`
`SE1004, FIG. 1 (annotated); SE1003, ¶48.
`
`
`
`Sampat discloses server 102 (the physical data source) accepting broadcast
`
`data from one or more input devices (e.g., camera 108, antenna 110, and VCR
`
`112). SE1004, 4:7-14 (“Server 102 is capable of capturing analog audio and video
`
`signals from three different sources: (1) signals generated locally by camera 108,
`
`(2) signals received by antenna 110 from a remote source, and (3) recorded signals
`
`from VCR 112”), 38:42-54 (the system can be used with “broadcasting”). “For
`
`example, server 102 may receive via antenna 110 a first television program” and
`
`“may receive a second television program … from VCR 112.” Id., 4:15-23; see
`
`also SE1001, 3:32-43 (describing receiving broadcast data from a “TV source
`
`24
`
`

`
`
`transmitter”), 11:50-51, FIG. 13 (describing and showing a VCR as another input
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`device); SE1003, ¶49.
`
`Sampat further discloses server 102 parsing video and audio data from the
`
`broadcast data. SE1004, 7:55-63 (“In particular, tuner 1502 of server subsystem
`
`102 receives, demodulates, and splits one or more analog television feed signals
`
`into their constituent analog audio and video signals.”); 4:24-43 (describing the
`
`server 102 digitizing and fragmenting the received signals). Figure 15, reproduced
`
`below, shows a block diagram of server 102, with its tuner 1502 parsing the
`
`broadcast data (purple) into video and audio data (brown).
`
`25
`
`

`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`SE1004, FIG. 15 (annotated); SE1003, ¶50.
`
`
`
`Alternatively, Sampat discloses a physical data source (hardware and
`
`software) as the server 102 without the tuner 1502. In that case, the tuner 1502 is
`
`the input device, as shown below.
`
`
`
`26
`
`

`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`
`
`SE1004, FIG. 15 (annotated-alternative); SE1003, ¶¶53-54.
`
`Such alternative interpretations are consistent with Patent Owner’s
`
`infringement contentions. See SE1015, 39-48, 101-110. For example, Patent
`
`Owner alleges that the “Samsung DVR has an input device that may include cable
`
`input, tuners…” (SE1015, 39), which is consistent with Sampat’s disclosure of
`
`tuner 1502 (SE1004, 7:59-61, 8:22-25): SE1003, ¶55.
`
`Sampat also discloses that this physical data source parses video and audio
`
`data under the BRI, which includes “analyzes video and audio data from said
`
`broadcast data.” SE1014, 82-88. The server 102 analyzes video and audio data
`
`from the broadcast data in multiple ways. For example, “[v]ideo capture
`
`27
`
`

`
`
`component 1504 captures and converts the analog video signals into digital video
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0037IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`data streams” and “audio capture component 1508 captures and converts the
`
`analog audio signals into digital audio data streams,” which includes analysis of
`
`video and audio data when converting into digital video. SE1004, 7:62-65;
`
`SE1003, ¶56. Additionally, “[v]ideo codec 1506 compresses the digital video data
`
`streams” and “[a]udio driver 1510 places the audio data into buffers,” which also
`
`includes analysis of video and audio data as broadly construed. SE1004, 8:7-10;
`
`SE1003, ¶56. Moreover, the server software architecture 1512 further analyzes the
`
`video and audio data. SE1004, 8:12-17, see also 8:50-13:33. Accordingly, Sampat
`
`also discloses the claimed physical data source under this alternative
`
`interpretation. SE1003, ¶¶53-56.
`
`[31.b, 61.b] wherein said physical data source accepts broadcast data from an
`input device, parses video and audio data from said broadcast data, and
`temporarily stores said video and audio data;
`
`Sampat discloses that the physical data source accepts broadcast data from
`
`an input device, parses video and audio data from said broadcast data, and
`
`temporarily stores said video and audio data. As explained in claim element
`
`[31.a], Sampat discloses that the physical data source accepts broadcast data from
`
`an input device and parses video and audio data from said broadcast data. SE1003,
`
`¶¶46-56; SE1004, 4:7-43, 7:55-63, 38:42-54, FIGS.