UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`Patent No. 8,407,609 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`Patent No. 8,407,609 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`C.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`THE COMBINATION OF DAVIS AND CHOI RENDER ALL
`CLAIMS OBVIOUS (GROUND I) ............................................................... 1
`A.
`The Petition Demonstrated that Davis as Modified by Choi
`Rendered the “Receiving” Step Obvious ............................................. 2
`B. None of Uniloc’s Arguments Undermine the Showing in the
`Petition .................................................................................................. 6
`III. THE COMBINATION OF SILER AND DAVIS RENDER ALL
`CLAIMS OBVIOUS (GROUND II) ............................................................ 13
`A.
`The Petition Demonstrated that Siler as Modified by Davis
`Rendered the “Receiving” Step Obvious ........................................... 14
`B. None of Uniloc’s Arguments Undermine the Showing in the
`Petition ................................................................................................ 16
`The Petition Demonstrated that Siler as Modified by Davis
`Rendered the “Wherein Each Provided Webpage . . .” Element
`Obvious .............................................................................................. 19
`D. None of Uniloc’s Arguments Undermine the Showing in the
`Petition ................................................................................................ 22
`IV. UNILOC MAKES NO ARGUMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE
`DEPENDENT CLAIMS ............................................................................... 26
`V. APJS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPOINTED PRIN-
`CIPAL OFFICERS ....................................................................................... 26
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 27
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`ORIGINAL EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609 B2 to Turner et al. (“’609 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002 Declaration of Michael Franz, Ph.D. (“Franz”)
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1003 U.S. Patent No. 5,796,952 (“Davis”)
`
`Ex. 1004 U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2003/0236905 A1 (“Choi”)
`
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2004/0133467 A1 (“Siler”)
`
`Ex. 1006 Affidavit of Matthew C. Bernstein in Support of Petitioners’
`Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission Under 37 C.F.R.
`§42.10(c)
`
`10
`
`Ex. 1007 Non-Exclusive Patent License and Settlement Agreement
`(CONFIDENTIAL - FOR FILING PARTY AND BOARD ONLY)
`
`NEW EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Excerpts of Uniloc’s Final Infringement Contentions Against Netflix
`
`15
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Michael Franz, Ph.D.
`(“Franz Supplement”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner challenged the invalidity of claims 1-3 of the ’609 patent on two
`
`grounds : obviousness based on Davis and Choi; and obviousness based on Siler
`
`and Davis. (See Petition, Paper 1). Petitioner supported its positions with the
`
`5
`
`expert declaration of Dr. Michael Franz (Ex. 1002) (“Franz”). In its Patent Owner
`
`Response (Paper 15) (“POR”), Uniloc levies numerous attacks on both grounds of
`
`invalidity, most based on ignoring the evidence of the well-reasoned motivations to
`
`combine explained in detail in the Petition and the supporting declaration.
`
`Tellingly, Uniloc did not submit an expert declaration in support of its arguments,
`
`10
`
`leaving Dr. Franz’s expert opinions unrebutted. None of Uniloc’s arguments in
`
`any way undermine the overwhelming showing of invalidity set forth in the
`
`Petition, and Petitioner therefore asks the Board find that Netflix has proven by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-3 are invalid.
`
`15
`
`II. THE COMBINATION OF DAVIS AND CHOI RENDER ALL
`
`CLAIMS OBVIOUS (GROUND I)
`Uniloc’s arguments against the Davis and Choi ground focuses on a single
`
`claim limitation of claim 1: “receiving at least a portion of the identifier data from
`
`the user’s computer responsively to the timer applet each time a predetermined
`
`temporal time period elapses using the first computer system.” For the reasons
`
`20
`
`discussed below, none of the attacks lodged by Uniloc with respect to this claim
`
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`limitation undermine the showing in the Petition that the combination of Davis and
`
`Choi renders claim 1 obvious.
`
`For the Board’s convenience, a summary of Netflix’s and Dr. Franz’s
`
`arguments and evidence from the Petition is first summarized (§ II.A below), and
`
`5
`
`then Uniloc’s arguments are addressed (§ II.B below).
`
`A. The Petition Demonstrated that Davis as Modified by Choi
`Rendered the “Receiving” Step Obvious.
`As explained in the Petition, Davis disclosed all aspects of this claim
`
`element other than that Davis’s applet operated according to a predetermined
`
`10
`
`temporal period. Petition at 27-31. And operation of Davis’s applet according to a
`
`predetermined temporal period was an obvious modification of Davis based on the
`
`teaching of Choi. Id.
`
`Davis disclosed that Server B, part of the first computer system, received
`
`information from the client, the user’s computer, as part of “CGI Script 2,”
`
`15
`
`highlighted in Davis’s Figure 4 below. The tracking program started a timer when
`
`the web page was first displayed on the client, and then terminated execution when
`
`the web page was no longer displayed. Davis at 12:22-33. The client then invoked
`
`CGI Script 2, providing to Server B “any information tracked and transmitted by
`
`the applet as well as any available information in the HTTP request header.” Id.
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`at 12:33-39; see also id. at 9:35-38 (emphasis added). The HTTP request header
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`would include the client ID. Id. at 11:59-12:4; Franz ¶¶132-134.
`
`
`
`Davis at Fig. 4 (annotated).
`
`5
`
`Thus, Davis disclosed that the first computer system (in part, Server B)
`
`received a portion of identifier data (at least the client ID) from the user’s
`
`computer (the client) responsive to a timer applet (the tracking program). The only
`
`aspect of this claim element that Davis did not disclose was that this reception
`
`occurs “each time a predetermined temporal period elapses.”
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`As discussed in the Petition, a POSA would have found it obvious to modify
`
`Davis’s system so that the client would send the identifier data to Server B upon
`
`expiration of a predetermined temporal period. Petition at 16:17-17:13. Notably,
`
`Davis disclosed that its tracking program operated by running from the time the
`
`5
`
`web page was first loaded until the user leaves the web page. See, e.g., Davis at
`
`12:26-28 (“The STOP method of the applet which is executed, for example, when
`
`the user leaves the web page . . . [.]” (emphasis added)); Franz ¶¶103-109. A
`
`POSA would have recognized
`
`that running
`
`the
`
`tracking program
`
`timer
`
`continuously until the user leaves the web page was only one way of tracking the
`
`10
`
`duration the web page was displayed. Franz ¶¶103-109.
`
`A POSA would have recognized from Choi’s disclosure that using a series
`
`of periodic reports from the client to the server while the web page was displayed
`
`was an alternate approach for providing reports. Choi at ¶0047 (“The client 110
`
`periodically transmits state data (e.g., logging statistics) to the server 108 for
`
`15
`
`storage.”); Franz ¶¶103-109. Choi explained that the period of time after which the
`
`client would send the state data to the server could be configured during the setup
`
`of the session between the client and server: “[T]he frequency of reporting [is] set
`
`by the statistics reporting interval parameter sent in the initial request.” Choi at
`
`¶0097; Franz ¶¶103-109.
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`As discussed in the Petition, a POSA would have been motivated to modify
`
`Davis’s system to use a periodic timer, both because a POSA would have
`
`recognized that using a periodic timer to trigger a report from the client to Server B
`
`was one among a limited number of solutions to triggering the report, and because
`
`5
`
`a POSA would have recognized the periodic reporting interval was an instance of
`
`the very widely-used “heartbeat” messaging paradigm that was frequently used for
`
`client-server communications. Franz ¶¶103-109.
`
`As discussed in the Petition, a POSA would have found it obvious to include
`
`additional identifier data in the message received by Davis’s Server B from the
`
`10
`
`client. Petition at 30:10-31:9. Namely, a POSA would have found it obvious to
`
`have Server A provide the stream identifier to the client. Petition at 25:7-26:8;
`
`Franz ¶¶124-130. Consistent with that discussion, Choi disclosed including the
`
`stream identifier in the periodic reporting messages sent by the client to the server.
`
`15
`
`20
`
`The client 110 periodically transmits state data (e.g.,
`logging statistics) to the server 108 for storage. In
`addition, the server 108 tracks the status of each client
`viewer state and allows an administrator of server 108 to
`determine the state of any client 110. The state data
`includes a session identifier and a stream identifier
`corresponding to the current client-server session and the
`streams being delivered, respectively.
`Choi at ¶0047; see also id. at ¶¶0096, 0097.
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`A POSA would have been motivated to include the stream identifier in the
`
`tracking data reported by the client to Server B. A POSA would have recognized
`
`that when Davis’s system was modified to include streaming content, that
`
`streaming content was yet another type of resource about which website
`
`5
`
`administrators, advertisers, or marketers may want to have tracking data. Franz
`
`¶¶136-150. Providing a stream identifier to Server B would have allowed the
`
`system to perform this tracking, which would have provided further resource-usage
`
`information for the website administrators, advertisers, and marketers that Davis
`
`disclosed as the consumers of the tracking information. Id.
`
`10
`
`In sum, Davis disclosed a timer applet providing identifier data, the client ID,
`
`to the first computer system, Server B. Based on the teachings of Choi, a POSA
`
`would have found it obvious to provide the client ID, as well as other identifier
`
`data, the stream identifier, to the Server B each time a predetermined temporal
`
`period elapses.
`
`15
`
`B. None of Uniloc’s Arguments Undermine the Showing in the
`Petition.
`Uniloc’s arguments all fail to undermine the preceding showing made in the
`
`Petition.
`
`Uniloc first argues that this ground is deficient because Davis did not
`
`20
`
`disclose that the timer applet used on the client machine repeatedly reported the
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`consumption of a content at the expiration of predetermined time intervals. POR at
`
`15:3-16:3. But as explained above, Davis did disclose a timer applet, Petition at
`
`26-27, and it was the teachings of Choi that rendered the use of a predetermined
`
`time interval an obvious modification of Davis, Petition at 27-30.
`
`5
`
`Uniloc next critiques this ground based on the implication that it is the client
`
`in Choi that determines the predetermined temporal period. POR at 16:4-12. But
`
`Uniloc never explains why that matters. Claim 1 does not specify how the
`
`predetermined temporal period is determined, and it certainly does not require that
`
`it can only be determined by the first computer system. Nor has Uniloc sought a
`
`10
`
`construction to that effect.
`
`Uniloc next critiques this ground based on what seems to be an argument
`
`that Davis does not use a “timer applet.” POR at 16:13-20. But Davis’s tracking
`
`program is irrefutably a timer applet, based on the explicit disclosure of Davis
`
`itself:
`
`15
`
` “The other resource located on Server B is a JAVA applet, the
`
`tracking program.”
`
`Davis at 12:13-14.
`
`“In its simplest form, the tracking program is a timer program linked
`
`to an HTML document and is downloaded and executed on a client
`
`20
`
`when the HTML document is served to the client.”
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Davis at 9:3-4. And as explained above and in the Petition, based on the teachings
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`of Choi, a POSA would have found it obvious to have Davis’s tracking program, a
`
`timer applet, operate according to a predetermined temporal period.
`
`Uniloc next argues that in Davis’s system, as modified by Choi, the
`
`5
`
`identifier data would not be sent at the expiration of each predetermined temporal
`
`period. POR at 16:21-18:3. Uniloc points to Choi’s explanation that the “various
`
`statistical parameters that remain constant throughout the session are sent only
`
`once at the beginning of the session.” Id. (quoting Choi at ¶0097). Uniloc is
`
`wrong for two independent reasons.
`
`10
`
`First, as explained above and in the Petition, Davis itself already disclosed
`
`sending identifier data, the client ID, in each reporting message from the client to
`
`the Server B. Petition at 27-28. The Server B uses the client ID to associate the
`
`tracking data with the client that initially received the timer applet, Davis at 11:57-
`
`12:4, 12:33-42, Franz ¶¶132-134, and nothing in Choi’s disclosure suggests that
`
`15
`
`the Server B would somehow not need to keep track of the association between the
`
`client and the tracking data. Franz Supplement ¶¶6-11.
`
`Second, Uniloc’s characterization of Choi is directly refuted by Choi’s own
`
`disclosure. Paragraph 0097 of Choi explains that “various statistical parameters
`
`that remain constant throughout the session are sent only once.” Choi at ¶0097.
`
`20
`
`But identifier data is not such a “statistical parameter” that could be reported only
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`once. Namely, without including the identifier data, such as session identifier and
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`stream identifier, in each periodic report, the server would be unable to associate
`
`the reported logging statistics with the client. Choi at ¶0047; Franz Supplement
`
`¶¶6-11. Uniloc’s argument supposes an illogical situation where a client reports
`
`5
`
`data about content consumption to a server, but the server does not know what
`
`client it is talking to. Choi’s disclosure of not repeating constant statistical
`
`parameters does not suggest such an illogical result. Franz Supplement ¶¶6-11.
`
`Uniloc next critiques this ground because the client in Choi supposedly sets
`
`the period for reporting tracking data to the server. POR at 18:4-14. Uniloc claims
`
`10
`
`this “bears no resemblance to the claim language.” Id. But Uniloc points to no
`
`claim language in support. In fact, Claim 1 does not specify how the
`
`predetermined temporal period is determined, much less that it can only be
`
`determined by the first computer system. The argument is inapposite.
`
`Uniloc next critiques this ground based on the Petition’s reference to
`
`15
`
`paragraph 0047 of Choi. POR at 18:15-19:12. This is a recapitulation of Uniloc’s
`
`argument that identifier data would be sent only once because it is “constant.”
`
`This argument is incorrect for the reasons explained above.
`
`Uniloc next argues that Davis and Choi are incompatible because Choi
`
`suggests sending a blank value to the server for the client computer identifier.
`
`20
`
`POR at 19:13-20:5. This argument is flawed for two reasons.
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`First, as explained above Davis itself already disclosed sending the client ID
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`in each reporting message from the client to the Server B. Petition at 27-28. The
`
`Server B uses the client ID to associate the tracking data with the client that
`
`initially received the timer applet, Davis at 11:57-12:4, 12:33-42, Franz ¶¶132-134,
`
`5
`
`and nothing in Choi’s disclosure suggests that the Server B would somehow not
`
`need to keep track of the association between the tracking data and the client in the
`
`subsequent periodic reports. Franz Supplement ¶¶6-11.
`
`Second, the Petition did not argue that the “c-dns” value from Choi would
`
`have been incorporated into the system of Davis. Rather, the Petition argued that a
`
`10
`
`POSA would have found it obvious to include other identifier data, the stream
`
`identifier, in the message from the client to the Server B. Petition at 24-26; Franz
`
`¶¶124-130. And Choi most certainly does disclose sending the stream identifier
`
`from the client to the server. Choi at ¶0047; Franz ¶¶124-130.
`
`Uniloc finally critiques this ground because Davis and Choi supposedly do
`
`15
`
`not disclose identifier data that is “data that can be used to identify the user and to
`
`identify the provided corresponding web page.” POR at 20:6-12. This argument is
`
`flawed for numerous reasons.
`
`First, this meaning of “identifier data” comes from a construction in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas case against a third-party, and one that Uniloc did not
`
`20
`
`seek in its litigation against the Petitioner. See Ex. 2003. Uniloc curiously does
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`not actually advocate that this construction should be adopted in this proceeding.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`POR at 13. Rather, Uniloc contents itself with passively observing that the Eastern
`
`District of Texas adopted this construction. Id. This is not sufficient to showing to
`
`warrant the Board adopting this construction.
`
`5
`
`Second, while Uniloc characterizes that court’s construction as being based
`
`on various elements of the intrinsic record, POR at 13, this greatly overstates the
`
`analysis provided in reaching the Court’s construction. Namely, the parties in that
`
`case provided very similar constructions, both requiring the identifier data relate to
`
`a “user and the digital media presentation.” Ex. 2002 at 62. The only
`
`10
`
`disagreement between the parties was whether the identifier needed to “correlate”
`
`or “identify” the user and the digital media presentation. Id. Given the proximity
`
`of the constructions, the court provided a tentative construction that neither party
`
`disagreed with. Id. The court thus adopted the tentative construction with nothing
`
`more than a “see also” cite to 13:10-33 in the ’609 Patent. That posture in
`
`15
`
`combination with Uniloc’s lukewarm reference to the construction does not
`
`demonstrate that the construction should be adopted here.
`
`Third, this construction of “identifier data” is incorrect in view of the
`
`detailed description in the ’609 Patent. Namely, in the passage cited by the court
`
`in adopting that construction, there are two examples provided. First, in “certain
`
`20
`
`embodiments of the present invention,” the server can receive “identifying data,
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`such as in form of a cookie.” ’609 Patent at 13:10-23. The server can receive and
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`store the cookie. Id. Separately, and “[b]y way of further non-limiting example,”
`
`at the expiration of each temporal period, “a table entry may be made of the user,
`
`the page the user is on, and” other information. Id. at 13:24-33. Thus, the ’609
`
`5
`
`Patent clearly states that the embodiment where identifier data identifies a user and
`
`a webpage is only one, non-limiting example embodiment, and in another
`
`embodiment, the identifier data is a cookie. Thus, based on the parties agreement,
`
`the Eastern District of Texas court entered a construction narrower than the
`
`disclosure of the ’609 Patent. Notably, Davis describes precisely the first
`
`10
`
`embodiment’s use of a cookie. Davis at 11:59-12:4, 12:33-40.
`
`Fourth, even if the Board adopted this construction, the system of Davis as
`
`modified by Choi includes this feature. Davis, as noted above, discloses that the
`
`identifier data provided in the HTTP request header includes a cookie, the “client
`
`ID,” which is exactly what the ’609 Patent itself discloses in the passage relied
`
`15
`
`upon by the Eastern District of Texas. See Davis at 11:59-12:4, 12:33-40; ’609
`
`Patent at 13:10-23; Franz ¶¶121-130, 132-134. The HTTP request header in the
`
`message from the client to the Server B also included the “network ID (IP address)”
`
`and “the URL of the Web page” that was being displayed. Davis at 11:59-12:4,
`
`12:33-40; Franz ¶¶121-130, 132-134. A POSA would have understood that a
`
`20
`
`cookie / client ID, a network identifier, and an identification of the URL of the
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`webpage being displayed is “data that can be used to identify the user and to
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`identify the provided corresponding web page.” Davis at 4:24-32, 11:59-12:4;
`
`Franz Supplement ¶9.
`
`While Uniloc alleges that there are myriad deficiencies in this ground, POR
`
`5
`
`at 20:13-21, Uniloc’s arguments fail to substantiate any of the purported
`
`deficiencies. The Petition showed that claim 1 would have been obvious to a
`
`POSA based on the combination of Davis and Choi, and the POR does nothing to
`
`undermine that showing.
`
`10
`
`III. THE COMBINATION OF SILER AND DAVIS RENDER ALL
`
`CLAIMS OBVIOUS (GROUND II)
`Uniloc’s arguments against the Siler and Davis ground focuses on two
`
`limitations of claim 1: the “receiving” step discussed above; and the limitation of
`
`“wherein each provided webpage causes corresponding digital media presentation
`
`data to be streamed from a second computer system distinct from the first
`
`15
`
`computer system directly to the user’s computer independent of the first computer
`
`system.” For the reasons discussed below, none of the attacks lodged by Uniloc
`
`with respect to this claim undermine the showing in the Petition that the
`
`combinations of Siler and Davis renders claim 1 obvious.
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`For the Board’s convenience, a summary of Netflix’s and Dr. Franz’s
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`arguments and evidence from the Petition is first summarized (§ III.A, C below),
`
`and then Uniloc’s arguments are addressed (§ II.B, D below).
`
`5
`
`A. The Petition Demonstrated that Siler as Modified by Davis
`Rendered the “Receiving” Step Obvious.
`As explained in the Petition, Siler disclosed all aspects of this claim element
`
`other than that Siler’s timer function was an applet. Petition at 56-59. And
`
`provision of Siler’s timer function as an applet was an obvious modification of
`
`Siler based on the teachings of Davis. Id. at 56; Franz ¶¶206-218.
`
`10
`
`Siler disclosed that web server 113, part of the first computer system,
`
`received the identifier data, in the form of the session identifier, from user client
`
`101, the user’s computer, responsive to the timer function of user client 101 each
`
`time a predetermined temporal period, the prescribed time of Figure 3, elapses.
`
`As explained in the Petition, Siler disclosed that user client 101 includes a
`
`15
`
`timer function that causes user client 101 to send on a periodic basis identifier data
`
`to web server 113, waiting for a prescribed time, and repeating this:
`
`20
`
`Referring now to FIGS. 1 and 3 in step 301, player
`application 122 sends information to web server 113.
`This information may be automatically sent on a periodic
`basis. This information preferably includes the user
`identifier, the session identifier and the stream
`identifier. . . . The player application waits for a
`prescribed time before repeating the process, as indicated
`by step 311.
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Siler at ¶0028.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 3, annotated. The identifier data received by web server 113 included
`
`the session identifier previously provided by web servers 113 and 117 to user
`
`
`
`5
`
`client 101. Siler at ¶0028.
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`While Siler did not explicitly describe that the timer function of user client
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`101 was provided as an applet to user client 101 from using web servers 113
`
`and 117, Davis disclosed this feature. Davis at 12:13-50; see also id. at 9:20-23,
`
`18:1-5. As explained in the Petition, a POSA would have been motivated to
`
`5
`
`modify Siler’s system based on the teachings of Davis so that the timer function
`
`would be provided as an applet downloadable from web servers 113 and 117 to the
`
`user client 101. Petition at 43-44, 56, Franz ¶¶206-218. Siler already disclosed an
`
`alternative implementation of having player application 122 provided as a web
`
`page, and implementing the timer function as a downloadable applet would have
`
`10
`
`been one of a limited number of well-known design choices, Franz ¶¶206-218.
`
`Additionally, implementation of the timer as an applet would have been a suitable
`
`implementation for a web page-based content viewer, id., and the timer function
`
`could have been advantageously implemented with a small amount of code, like
`
`the simple applet code described in Davis. Davis at 12:13-50; Franz ¶¶206-218.
`
`15
`
`Thus, Siler disclosed every aspect of this claim element, other than that the
`
`timer function is provided as an applet. But a POSA would have found it obvious
`
`in light of the teachings of Siler and Davis to provide the timer function as an
`
`applet.
`
`20
`
`B. None of Uniloc’s Arguments Undermine the Showing in the
`Petition.
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`Uniloc’s arguments all fail to undermine the preceding showing made in the
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`Petition.
`
`Uniloc first critiques this ground by repeating its incorrect assertion that
`
`Davis does not disclose a timer applet. POR at 21:11-19. As explained above in
`
`5
`
`§ II.B, Davis explicitly discloses a timer applet. And in any case, Uniloc’s critique
`
`is backwards: Siler discloses a timer function that operates according to a
`
`predetermined temporal period, and it would have been obvious to modify that
`
`timer function to provide it as an applet. Petition at 43-44, 56, Franz ¶¶206-218.
`
`Uniloc’s argument focuses only on the secondary reference and ignores the
`
`10
`
`extensive explanation of motivation to combine provided in the Petition.
`
`Uniloc next critiques this ground based on supposed “party admissions.”
`
`POR at 21:20-22:4. Uniloc’s argument seems to focus on the fact that Siler
`
`describes a player application installed on the client. Again, Uniloc completely
`
`disregards the extensive explanation of motivation to combine provided in the
`
`15
`
`Petition: Siler itself suggests modifying the player application to provide it as a
`
`webpage, and a POSA would have found it obvious to provide the timer function
`
`as an applet in such a scenario. Petition at 43-44, 56, Franz ¶¶206-218.
`
`Uniloc next critiques this ground because the Petition supposedly did not
`
`explain why a webpage implementation of Siler’s client application relates to the
`
`20
`
`use of an applet. POR at 22:5-11. But Uniloc ignores the extensive explanation of
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`this very subject. Petition at 43-44, 56, Franz ¶¶206-218. In short, Siler disclosed
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`the timer function installed on the user client 101 when the player application 122
`
`was an application installed on the user client 101. Petition at 43-44, 56, Franz
`
`¶¶206-218. But when the player application 122 was modified to be provided as a
`
`5
`
`webpage, as Siler itself suggested, a POSA would have found it obvious to provide
`
`the timer function as an applet, because that was one of a finite number of ways to
`
`provide downloadable code, because it was a well-known and preferable way to
`
`implement custom functionality (the timer function) in a webpage, and because the
`
`applet implementation would have required less software to be stored permanently
`
`10
`
`on the user client 101. Petition at 43-44, 56, Franz ¶¶206-218. Uniloc completely
`
`ignores this detailed presentation.
`
`Uniloc’s next argument is a repeat of the argument based on the Eastern
`
`District of Texas construction of “identifier data.” POR at 22:12-18. As explained
`
`above in § II.B, Uniloc does not actually advocate for the adoption of that
`
`15
`
`construction here, and that construction is incorrect in view of the different
`
`example embodiments provided in the ’609 Patent, so the Board should not adopt
`
`it. In any case, if the Board adopts that construction, the combination of Siler and
`
`Davis includes those features, based both on Siler’s disclosure of receiving a
`
`session identifier and based on Davis’s disclosures discussed above. See Petition
`
`20
`
`at 56-59; Siler at ¶0026 (describing contents of session record containing the
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`session identifier, user identifier, and media stream); Franz ¶¶206-218; see also
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`§ II.B.
`
`While Uniloc alleges that there are myriad deficiencies in this ground, POR
`
`at 22:19-23:5, Uniloc’s arguments fail to substantiate any of the purported
`
`5
`
`deficiencies. The Petition showed that claim 1 would have been obvious to a
`
`POSA based on the combination of Siler and Davis, and the POR does nothing to
`
`undermine that showing.
`
`10
`
`C. The Petition Demonstrated that Siler as Modified by Davis
`Rendered the “Wherein Each Provided Webpage . . .” Element
`Obvious.
`As explained in the Petition, Siler disclosed all aspects of this claim element.
`
`Namely, Siler taught that the web page provided by web servers 113 and 117 to
`
`user client 101, the user’s computer, caused user client 101 to stream media data
`
`from streaming server 105, the second computer system, directly to user client 101.
`
`15
`
`Petition at 61-62.
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`
`
`Siler at Fig. 1, annotated by Petitioners, combined from Figs. 1A and 1B.
`
`Siler disclosed that, as a result of a user selecting a stream to display, web
`
`servers 113 and 117 provided user client 101 with a URL, which caused the user
`
`5
`
`client 101 to stream content from streaming server 105. Siler at ¶¶0025, 0027.
`
`Streaming server 105 transferred the streaming media directly to user client 101
`
`over the packet network 103. Id. at ¶0027; id. at ¶0017 (“The data stream is
`
`transmitted by a streaming server 105 through packet network 103 to the client
`
`computer.”). Franz ¶¶234-236.
`
`132876-0001.8902/LEGAL149852293.1
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`As explained in the Petition, when Siler’s system used the alternative
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-00041
`
`
`
`implementation of having player application 122 provided as a web page, a POSA
`
`would have found it obvious to have web servers 113 and 117 provide a web page
`
`to user client 101 fo
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
