PTAB

IPR2017-00447

Google Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Partitioning of MP3 Content File for Emulating Streaming
  • Brief Description: The ’806 patent describes methods and systems for reducing latency when accessing large multimedia files over a network. The technology emulates streaming by using an XML-based control file to define a media presentation composed of multiple, smaller file segments, allowing a client device to begin playback of the first segment while subsequent segments are downloaded concurrently.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over SMIL 1.0 - Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are anticipated by SMIL 1.0.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: SMIL 1.0 (Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language 1.0 Specification, June 15, 1998).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that SMIL 1.0, an XML-based authoring language for multimedia presentations, inherently discloses all limitations of the challenged method and device claims. Petitioner asserted that a SMIL document is a "control information file" written in XML, which is downloaded and parsed by a client device (a SMIL player). The SMIL 1.0 specification explicitly teaches using a <switch> element to identify and select from "multiple alternative files" based on "system restraints" such as system-screen-size or system-bitrate. The client then retrieves the determined file to begin the presentation. Petitioner contended that the conditional "if" clauses in independent claims 1 and 12, which describe retrieving a next file concurrently with the presentation, are optional limitations. Because these steps are only required if a presentation uses multiple files, Petitioner argued they do not limit the scope of the claim and need not be found in the prior art for a finding of anticipation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over SMIL 1.0 - Claims 1-16 are obvious over SMIL 1.0 and the knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: SMIL 1.0 (Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language 1.0 Specification, June 15, 1998) and Hua (K.A. Hua, et al., “2PSM: An Efficient Framework for Searching Video Information in a Limited-Bandwidth Environment,” Sept. 1999).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that even if the conditional limitations regarding concurrent download and playback are considered limiting, they would have been obvious to a POSA in view of SMIL 1.0. The argument centered on combining SMIL 1.0's <seq> (sequential) element with the well-known technique of "pipelining," as taught by Hua, to minimize playback latency. Pipelining involves downloading a subsequent media segment while the current one is playing. Petitioner asserted this directly corresponds to the concurrent retrieval limitations. This obviousness rationale was extended to dependent claims, such as claims 8 and 14 which specify MP3 files; Petitioner argued using the popular and interchangeable MP3 format with SMIL 1.0 would have been an obvious design choice. Claims 15 and 16, which add an XML parser and interpreter, were argued to be obvious as they represent the fundamental components needed to process any SMIL 1.0 file.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a POSA would be motivated to implement SMIL 1.0's sequential presentation capabilities using a pipelining technique to solve the widely recognized problem of download latency. This combination would directly address the user-experience issue of long wait times for multimedia content, providing a significant and predictable improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Implementing concurrent download and playback (pipelining) was a known solution to a known problem. Furthermore, the ’806 patent itself notes that the underlying programming techniques for concurrent operations, such as multithreading, were a common skill for software engineers at the time, indicating the implementation would have been straightforward.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "[a/the] given segment of the media presentation": Petitioner proposed this term means "part or all of the media presentation." This construction is critical to the anticipation argument, as it allows the claims to encompass presentations made from a single file. This reading supports Petitioner's position that the conditional clauses in claims 1 and 12 (which trigger only for multi-file presentations) are optional and do not limit the claim scope.
  • “means for parsing a control information file”: For this means-plus-function limitation in claim 12, Petitioner identified the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification as "software for parsing a control information file, including an XML parser." This construction allows SMIL 1.0, which inherently requires an XML parser on the client device to function, to meet the structural requirements of the claim limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-16 of the ’806 patent as unpatentable.