PTAB

IPR2016-01161

WebPower, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Streaming Media Buffering System
  • Brief Description: The ’011 patent describes methods and systems for streaming media over a network, such as the Internet. The patent’s purported innovation is a system that transmits media data from a server to a client’s buffer more rapidly than the media is played back, specifically under conditions where the buffer is not full, to ensure the buffer is replenished and to prevent interruptions.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Chen - Claims 1, 2, and 4 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102 as anticipated by Chen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chen (Patent 5,822,524).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Chen, which was not cited during prosecution, discloses every limitation of claims 1, 2, and 4. Chen describes a client-server system for streaming multimedia files that are packetized into data elements. Each data element is assigned a unique serial number ("Pkt. Seq. No.") in its header. The system uses a client-side buffer managed by a "water mark" model with high and low thresholds. When the data in the buffer falls below the low water mark, the server enters a "Rush" mode, where data is transmitted "as fast as possible" to refill the buffer, which is inherently faster than the normal playback rate. This directly teaches the core limitations of claim 1, including the player buffer manager, the tracking of serial numbers for received packets, and the repeated requests to maintain a predetermined number of elements in the buffer. Claim 2 is a computer adapted to function as the media player of claim 1, which is met by Chen’s disclosure of a client machine (e.g., a PC). Claim 4’s limitation of receiving data "at a rate more rapid than" the playback rate is expressly taught by Chen’s "Rush" mode.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that the ’011 patent’s alleged invention is nothing more than the well-known pre-buffering technique explicitly detailed in Chen, including dynamically adjusting the transmission rate based on buffer fullness.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Chen in view of Rolf - Claim 3 is obvious over Chen in view of Rolf.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chen (Patent 5,822,524) and Rolf (Patent 7,065,342).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that claim 3 only adds one limitation to claim 1: that the media player is a "wireless phone." While Chen provides all the base limitations of the streaming and buffering system as detailed in Ground 1, Rolf explicitly discloses a system for wirelessly transmitting encoded music and other media over an Internet link to a portable device, which it identifies as a "cellular telephone." Rolf’s disclosure provides the missing element of a wireless phone functioning as the media player.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the teachings of Chen and Rolf. A POSITA seeking to improve the mobile streaming experience taught by Rolf would look to known, robust buffering systems like Chen’s to ensure smooth, uninterrupted playback on a mobile device. Applying Chen's efficient buffering management (the water-mark and Rush mode system) to Rolf's mobile client would have been a common-sense step to enhance performance and expand the practical application of streaming technology to the growing market for mobile devices.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. It would involve the simple and predictable substitution of Chen’s stationary client computer with Rolf’s mobile device client. The result would be the predictable functioning of a known buffering system on a known type of device, yielding improved streaming quality on a wireless phone.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4 of the ’011 patent as unpatentable.