PTAB

IPR2019-01237

Google LLC v. Virentem Ventures LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Digital Rendering System with Variable Rate Presentation
  • Brief Description: The ’050 patent relates to a digital rendering system with variable rate presentation capabilities. The invention manages media playback at various speeds by using two distinct time parameters: a “presentation time” representing the actual elapsed time of rendering and a “data time” representing the time that would have elapsed if the content were rendered at a default, normal rate.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Nelson - Claims 1-4, 8, 20, 25, 31-32, 34, 36, and 40-45 are obvious over Nelson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nelson (Patent 5,719,786).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Nelson, which discloses a computer-based media data processor for controlling the presentation of time-based media, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Nelson’s system controls media presentation rates using synchronization schemes that rely on a “common reference time base,” which Petitioner mapped to the ’050 patent’s “presentation time parameter.” The system in Nelson determines playback progress by tracking consumed “presentation units,” which Petitioner mapped to the claimed “data time parameter.” Nelson also explicitly discloses playing media streams at a “custom rate” by advancing its reference time base faster or slower than real-time, which Petitioner asserted teaches the claimed “time-scale modification.”
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As this ground relies on a single reference, the argument was that Nelson alone discloses or renders obvious all claim elements. For any features not explicitly detailed, such as storing data on non-volatile media, Petitioner contended it would have been a simple and obvious design choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) implementing Nelson’s system.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner’s argument implied a high expectation of success, as implementing Nelson’s disclosed features would predictably result in a functional variable-rate media player.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Nelson and Covell - Claims 25, 31-32, 34, 36, and 40-45 are obvious over Nelson in view of Covell.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nelson (Patent 5,719,786) and Covell (Patent 5,828,994).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative, arguing that to the extent Nelson’s teachings on deleting late presentation units are deemed insufficient to meet the limitation of “changing the number of audio samples” (recited in claim 25), Covell supplies the missing element. Covell discloses an improved Synchronous Overlap-Add (SOLA) technique for time-scale modification of audio. This technique functions by directly “inserting additional audio samples to the stream or removing samples from the stream” to achieve playback speed changes while maintaining intelligibility.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Covell's superior audio modification technique into Nelson’s media rendering system to achieve a known goal with a predictable result. Both references recognize the desirability of modifying media playback rates. Implementing Covell’s method would predictably improve the audio quality and intelligibility in Nelson’s system, especially at high modification rates, and would allow for better synchronization between audio and fast-playing video.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in this combination, as it involved applying a known, improved audio processing technique (from Covell) to a known type of media system (from Nelson) to enhance a specific, desired functionality (variable-rate playback).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Time-Scale Modification": Petitioner proposed construing this term as “playback rate modification.” This construction was central to linking the claim language to Nelson’s disclosure of playing media at a “custom rate” independent of its capture rate.
  • "Temporal Sequence Presentation Data": Petitioner proposed a detailed, multi-part construction taken directly from an express definition in the ’050 patent’s specification. This construction was critical for mapping numerous features of Nelson’s disclosed media streams—such as having distinct data types, timing information, and ordering—to the specific requirements of the claims.
  • "Current Time": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as “the current ‘position’ in the media content that is being displayed and rendered.” This interpretation supported the argument that Nelson’s “reference time base,” which indicates the current point in the playback sequence, met the claim limitation.
  • "Tangibly Stored in a ... Computer-Readable Medium": Petitioner argued this phrase should be construed as “stored in a non-volatile storage element,” based on exemplary embodiments in the specification. This was used to argue that storing media on disk drives, as shown in Nelson, satisfied the claim limitation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that both of its concurrently filed IPR petitions should be instituted. It asserted that the petitions present distinct grounds and legal theories against the challenged claims (Nelson combined with Covell versus a single, different reference in the other petition). Petitioner contended this approach was appropriate and efficient given the co-pending district court litigation was in its early stages, with formal claim construction yet to occur, creating uncertainty that warranted review of multiple invalidity challenges.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4, 8, 20, 25, 31, 32, 34, 36, 40-43, and 45 of the ’050 patent as unpatentable.