Sling TV L.L. C.
`
`v.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`IPR2019-01367 (Patent 8,407,609)
`
`Uniloc’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Before Charles J. Boudreau, Daniel J. Galligan, & Juliet Mitchell Dirba,
`
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`December 3, 2020
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`IPR2019-01367 (Patent 8,407,609)
`
`Uniloc’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Before Charles J. Boudreau, Daniel J. Galligan, & Juliet Mitchell Dirba,
`
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`December 3, 2020
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`
`L‘WYM
`III IIIII IIII
`
`.; United States Patent
`Thur
`SI SIS")! \‘l!w‘nm FDR mum.
`\‘II 'luIIViWI lunlwunywm:
`.\\D\ llllu Pukhlllnfll \l\ \
`( ("Willanu
`in u
`IMKJ-I Nu— .DMLIM
`
`~
`
`US ”07.699 B:
`-|In Punt Nm:
`Mar. 26. 2013
`aw Dale ot Punt:
`I'M VIII-ll human-n um.
`VIr.
`TI! T.“ 13,114. V1I.
`, 1‘7"
`20K.
`
`‘01:”.2}:
`m qua.- m l: mu"..- m u",
`an...“ I...
`
`m)
`
`I;
`
`n 1; .Wlaim
`_
`‘
`n...“ mum-nu Una mun-"u...
`..u m... u
`. an».- a...“
`
`w. 4'“...
`‘
`WW I... m
`“mun
` -')
`
`m ”I...“ I...
`A nth-I mm...
`mun. Mum "“qu
`“Imp-.1... ..mp...-
`.\.I...Imn.m_. m
`|“-‘l““’5“"'- U
`R-
`I:MIK1‘"\\I rum-u .mum A
`-
`rm. "and" Jun-1...... II .-
`.m.
`
`
`mu, .m- uni-zinc “1.“qu .m. .Ilu. Ila-m
`Autumnal-unnum-
`an mum mmra.m(m~om1mauu mum
`Mu. Ann:IoumnuIn-vuwunlu-qmln
`,,
`|
`_
`“
`
`:Ҥ;"""
`"" ""‘”""“"“‘""
`um. my...
`lulu-xuufivylmdlnllsh-u:
`
`
`a“, a,
`mm,”
`mm max-u... . luau-ml u I. u. Ina-1d»-
`(yarn/M
`[mun
`mun-.mnmmfihmu
`:zmsm-«mm mm
`uu-nmmmum.
`«: mu
`"swo- 1|\“II,‘I:\7:I vrwtr
`
`“'
`
`Inventor:
`
`Tod C. Turner
`
`Assignee:
`
`LINQware Inc.
`
`FIling Date:
`
`August 21, 2009
`
`Provisional Date: August 21 , 2008
`
`
`
`NETFLIX. INC. EXHIBIT IDOI
`
`Ex. 1001. Cover.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’609 Patent
`
`1. A method for tracking digital media presentations delivered from a first computer system to a user’s
`computer via a network comprising:
`[a] providing a corresponding web page to the user’s computer for each digital media presentation to be
`delivered using the first computer system;
`[b] providing identifier data to the user’s computer using the first computer system;
`[c] providing an applet to the user’s computer for each digital media presentation to be delivered using the
`first computer system, wherein the applet is operative by the user’s computer as a timer;
`[d] receiving at least a portion of the identifier data from the user’s computer responsively to the timer
`applet each time a predetermined temporal period elapses using the first computer system; and
`[e] storing data indicative of the received at least portion of the identifier data using the first computer
`system;
`[f] wherein each provided webpage causes corresponding digital media presentation data to be streamed
`from a second computer system distinct from the first computer system directly to the user’s computer
`independent of the first computer system;
`[g] wherein the stored data is indicative of an amount of time the digital media presentation data is
`streamed from the second computer system to the user’s computer; and
`[h] wherein each stored data is together indicative of a cumulative time the corresponding web page was
`displayed by the user’s computer.
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:17-45.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`3
`
`
`
`Asserted Grounds
`
`Challenged
`Claims
`
`Section
`
`References
`
`1-3
`
`1-3
`
`Pre-AIA § 103(a)
`
`Jacoby (Ex. 1006) in view of
`
`Bland (Ex. 1009)
`
`Pre-AIA § 103(a)
`
`Mcternan (Ex. 1007) in view of
`
`Robinson (Ex. 1008)
`
`Pet. at 2; Inst. Dec. at 3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`4
`
`
`
`“Computer System” Requires No Construction
`
`The Court agrees with Uniloc that the
`specification’s statement that a computer system
`“as used herein may generally take the form of
`… collections of computing devices having a
`common operator or under common control is
`not definitional. The phrase “may generally”
`does not reflect an intent by the patent applicant
`to definitively limit the meaning of the term
`“computer system.”….The Court does not
`construe the term “computer system” at this
`time.
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:52-55.
`
`Ex. 2001 at 14-15.
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:52-55; Ex. 2001 at 14-15; Resp. at 14-15; POSR at 1-3; see also Inst. Dec. at 8.DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`
`
`Providing an Applet Step
`
`[c] providing an applet to the user’s computer for each digital media presentation
`to be delivered using the first computer system, wherein the applet is operative by
`the user’s computer as a timer;
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:17-45.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`6
`
`
`
`Jacoby Fails to Disclose Providing an Applet
`
`Inst. Dec. at 31-33; Resp. at 15-16; POSR at 3-4.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`7
`
`
`
`Bland Fails to Disclose Providing an Applet
`
`Uniloc ignores the actual mapping in the
`Petition, which points to either Jacoby or the
`Jacoby-Bland combination for this feature.
`
`Reply at 18.
`
`Reply at 18; POSR at 5.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`8
`
`
`
`Jacoby
`
`Ex. 1006, ¶29; Resp. at 20-21; POSR at 7-8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`9
`
`
`
`Element 1[f]
`
`[f] wherein each provided webpage causes corresponding digital media presentation
`data to be streamed from a second computer system distinct from the first
`computer system directly to the user’s computer independent of the first computer
`system;
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:17-45.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`10
`
`
`
`Element 1[g]
`
`[g] wherein the stored data is indicative of an amount of time the digital media
`presentation data is streamed from the second computer system to the user’s
`computer; and
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:17-45.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`11
`
`
`
`McTernan
`
`Ex. 1007 at 11:4-6; POSR at 14.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`12
`
`
`
`Prohibition Against Hindsight Intact Post-KSR
`
`• Pre-AIA § 103—”at the time the invention was made”
`• MPEP §2141.01(III)—”[t]he requirement ‘at the time the
`invention was made’ is to avoid impermissible hindsight.”
`• KSR, 550 U.S. 398—”distortion caused by hindsight bias and
`must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post
`reasoning.
`• Post KSR cases continue to apply hindsight
`
`POSR at 8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`13
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine in the Particular “Manner Claimed”
`
`The Federal Circuit has, therefore, consistently held that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art must not only have had some
`motivation to combine the prior art teachings, but some
`motivation to combine the prior art teachings in the particular
`manner claimed. See, e.g., In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1371
`(Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Particular findings must be made as to the
`reason the skilled artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed
`invention, would have selected these components for
`combination in the manner claimed.”)
`
`Resp. at 37-38; POSR at 18-19.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`14
`
`
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
