PTAB

IPR2016-01656

IML SLU v. WAG Acquisition LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Streaming Media Buffering System
  • Brief Description: The ’141 patent discloses methods and systems for distributing streaming media over a network, such as the Internet. The technology aims to prevent playback interruptions ("dropouts") by transmitting media data from a server to a user's device at a rate faster than the media's playback rate, thereby pre-filling and maintaining a client-side buffer.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation - Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-16, 18-20, 23-24, and 26-28 are anticipated by Chen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chen (Patent 5,822,524).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Chen discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Chen describes a streaming media system that uses "Water Marks" in a client-side buffer to regulate the server's transmission rate. The system operates in different modes, including a "NORMAL" mode that transmits data at the playback rate and a "RUSH" mode that increases the transmission rate when the client buffer level falls below a certain threshold. Petitioner contended that Chen’s "RUSH" mode is inherently a "rate more rapid than the rate at which said streaming media is played back," thus anticipating the core limitation of independent claims 1, 10, and 24. Chen also disclosed assigning sequential packet numbers for tracking and retransmission, meeting other key claim limitations.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Chen and Carmel - Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-18, 21, 24, and 26-28 are obvious over Chen in view of Carmel.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chen (Patent 5,822,524) and Carmel (Patent 6,389,473).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative if Chen's "RUSH" mode was not considered to inherently teach a faster-than-playback rate. Chen provides the foundational adaptive streaming system with client-side buffering. Carmel explicitly teaches that the transmission rate of multimedia data from a server to a client may be "faster than the rate at which the data are generated at the transmitting computer," which for live streams is equivalent to the playback rate.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Carmel's explicit teaching of a faster-than-playback transmission rate with Chen’s adaptive buffering system. This combination would be a predictable solution to enhance the performance of Chen's "RUSH" mode, directly aligning with Chen’s stated goal of transmitting data "as fast as possible" when the client buffer is low.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining these references, as both describe compatible client-server architectures for streaming packetized media data over a network.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Chen, Chen File History, and Willebeek - Claims 8, 17, and 21 are obvious over Chen in view of Chen File History and Willebeek.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chen (Patent 5,822,524), Chen File History, and Willebeek (IBM Journal of Research and Development, Mar. 1998).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically addressed dependent claims reciting a server that obtains streaming media from a live source. While Chen primarily describes streaming from stored files, Willebeek discloses a complete system for streaming live audio and video over the Internet. Willebeek’s system uses a "capture station" to digitize a live feed and a "reflector" server with a circular buffer to distribute the live stream to multiple clients.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to integrate Willebeek’s live-streaming capabilities into the Chen system to expand its functionality. At the time of the invention, there was a known and growing demand for live broadcasts, which would have prompted a skilled artisan to adapt Chen's efficient buffering system for use with live feeds.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have been predictable because both systems are based on packetized data transmission and client-server principles. Integrating a known live-feed capture technique (from Willebeek) into a known streaming delivery system (Chen) was a straightforward design choice to improve a similar device.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including a ground based on Chen in view of its File History to reinforce the explicit teaching of starting transmissions in a "RUSH" mode. Another ground added the ISO-11172 (MPEG-1) standard to the combination of Chen, its File History, and Willebeek to render claims requiring encoding at a "constant bit rate" obvious.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed that the key claim term "a rate more rapid than the rate at which said streaming media is played back by a user" should be construed to mean "a transmission rate faster than the rate at which the media is played by the user system."
  • This construction was asserted to be central to all invalidity grounds, as it defines the primary inventive concept that Petitioner argued was already disclosed or rendered obvious by the prior art.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) would be inappropriate.
  • Although the primary reference, Chen, was used in a prior-filed IPR petition by another party, Petitioner contended that this petition presented new invalidity grounds based on different combinations of prior art.
  • Petitioner further argued that it was not a party to the prior IPR and that it would suffer significant prejudice from a denial, as its one-year statutory bar date to file a petition was imminent.

7. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-28 of Patent 8,122,141 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.