PTAB

IPR2021-00717

Volkswagen Group Of America Inc v. StratosAudio Inc

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Interactive Broadcast Systems
Brief Description: The ’203 patent is directed to systems that enable listeners to interact with a broadcast, for example, by purchasing a song or an advertised item. The technology involves compiling content information (programming data) and including it within a broadcast signal, such as in a subcarrier channel, which can then be received and processed by a user's device to facilitate a response.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Poltorak (Patent 10,062,095).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Poltorak discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Poltorak describes a "media playing device" that receives broadcast media content along with accompanying information (e.g., song title, artist) that is multiplexed with the audio. Petitioner asserted this device corresponds to the claimed "device" and its "receiver module." The device includes memory, an input device for initiating a purchase, and a transmitter for sending a "purchase request message" containing song information to a central computer for processing. These elements, Petitioner contended, map directly to the claimed "memory," "input control," "transmitter," "response packet," and "response authentication system." Dependent claims were also argued to be disclosed, with Poltorak's "identification number pertaining to the song" mapping to the "broadcast event identifier" of claims 47 and 48.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Christensen (WO 02/23773).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Christensen’s "Automatic Purchase System (APS)" anticipates the claims. Christensen discloses a "radio receiver" that receives broadcast audio along with synchronously sent RBDS/RDS data, which constitutes the claimed "data packet." The receiver includes components like an RF Demodulator, an RBDS/RDS Decoder, a control interface, and local memory, which collectively perform the functions of the claimed "receiver module" and "memory." A user can initiate a purchase via a button or voice command, and the receiver transmits a request including content information to an "authentication and billing system." Petitioner mapped this functionality to the claimed "input control," "transmitter," "response packet," and "response authentication system." Christensen’s disclosure of assigning a "unique identifier" to each broadcast segment was argued to anticipate the "broadcast event identifier" limitation.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Corts (Patent 10,819,298).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Corts’ "rCommerce" system for purchasing items via a radio broadcast anticipates the claims. Corts describes a "DAB car stereo receiver" that receives a digital signal containing "IR Data" (e.g., SKU, price, description) along with the audio broadcast. The receiver displays this information and allows a user to initiate a purchase by pressing a button. This action sends a signal back to a "gateway" and "order processor" for validation and fulfillment. Petitioner argued the receiver is the claimed "device," the "IR Data" is the "data packet," the purchase signal is the "response packet," and the gateway/processor is the "response authentication system." Petitioner further contended that the disclosed SKU (Stock Keeping Unit) corresponds to the claimed "broadcast event identifier" as it is a unique descriptor for the broadcast content.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claim 52 is obvious over Poltorak in view of either Christensen or Corts, which explicitly disclose using a key-pad or voice instruction receiver as input controls. Further obviousness grounds were asserted against all challenged claims based on Christensen and Corts, arguing that any limitations not found to be expressly or inherently disclosed would have been obvious modifications to a POSITA.

Product-by-Process Limitations: Petitioner dedicated significant argument to construing the "wherein" clauses of claims 43, 56, and 62. These clauses recite that the content information is "sourced from a database system" with certain characteristics. Petitioner argued these are product-by-process limitations that improperly define the claimed device by reference to an unclaimed, remote database. Because these clauses describe the origin of the data rather than imparting any structural or functional limitations onto the claimed "receiver module" or "communication module," Petitioner contended they should be given no patentable weight in the anticipation analysis.

Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) would be inappropriate. The core reason provided was that none of the primary prior art references relied upon in the petition—Poltorak, Christensen, or Corts—were substantively applied by the Examiner in a rejection during the original prosecution of the ’203 patent.

Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 43, 47, 48, 51, 52, 56, and 62 of the ’203 patent as unpatentable.