PTAB

IPR2025-00775

Google LLC v. WithRow Networks Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: MULTIMEDIA SYSTEM FOR MOBILE CLIENT PLATFORMS
  • Brief Description: The ’849 patent discloses a system for streaming multimedia to mobile client platforms. The system involves a client-side multimedia player that autonomously selects multimedia objects based on available network bandwidth and utilizes optimized decoding processes to maintain playback quality and fluidity.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-9 are obvious over Carmel in view of Mattavelli.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Carmel (Patent 6,389,473) and Mattavelli (a 1998 European Signal Processing Conference paper).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Carmel, which teaches a real-time multimedia broadcasting system, discloses nearly all limitations of the challenged claims. Carmel’s system segments a multimedia stream into "slices" available at multiple quality levels. A client player selects the appropriate quality level based on its network bandwidth and can autonomously adjust this selection by monitoring the data transfer rate. Carmel also teaches the use of HTTP for clients to request and receive these multimedia objects (slices) over a network, including wireless connections. Petitioner asserted that the only limitation not expressly taught by Carmel is the use of "optimized decoding processes." This element, Petitioner argued, is supplied by Mattavelli, which teaches "Computational Graceful Degradation" (CGD) techniques. These techniques use simplified, less computationally intensive decoding algorithms when processing resources are overtaxed to ensure the fluidity and real-time continuity of playback are maintained.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the teachings of Carmel and Mattavelli to create a more robust streaming system that addresses both network-based constraints (taught by Carmel) and client-side processing constraints (taught by Mattavelli). Carmel's express goal of minimizing "decoding delay" would have motivated a POSITA to look for solutions like Mattavelli's CGD techniques. The combination addresses complementary bottlenecks in the streaming chain to predictably improve the overall user experience.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as Mattavelli explicitly stated its CGD techniques could be applied to any video compression standard and processor-based platform, making them readily integrable into Carmel's streaming system to achieve the desired result of maintaining playback continuity under processing constraints.

Ground 2: Claims 1-9 are obvious over Carmel in view of Wang.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Carmel (Patent 6,389,473) and Wang (a 2003 IEEE conference paper).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground relied on Carmel for the same base teachings as Ground 1. To meet the "optimized decoding processes" limitation, Petitioner cited Wang. Wang teaches a "platform-based MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding (AVC) decoder" specifically designed to optimize decoding on resource-constrained mobile devices. Wang’s optimizations include enhanced frame buffer management and content-aware inverse transforms to increase throughput and allow mobile devices to handle the computationally complex AVC standard. Petitioner also argued that Wang’s focus on mobile devices reinforces the obviousness of implementing Carmel’s system over a wireless connection. For dependent claims related to splitting streams at an I-frame, Wang’s teachings on the AVC standard (which uses I-frames as reference points) further supported this limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to combine Carmel's streaming framework with Wang's optimized decoder to enable high-quality video streaming on mobile wireless devices. As wireless devices were known to have processing limitations, a POSITA would seek out optimizations like those in Wang to enable the use of efficient, high-compression standards like AVC, which are ideal for wireless transmission. Carmel's acknowledgment of potential decoding delays would provide further motivation to incorporate Wang's high-throughput decoder.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect the combination to be successful. Wang demonstrated that its optimized decoder improved throughput by "6 to 7 times" over a reference decoder, ensuring predictable performance improvements when integrated into a streaming system like Carmel's for mobile applications.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations of Carmel, Wang, and Wolters (a paper on HE AAC audio decoding) to explicitly teach optimized audio and video decoding, as well as further combinations including Guo (Patent 7,398,312 for multi-server streaming), Yu (Patent 7,099,389 for transcoding), and Forecast (Patent 7,096,481 for splitting video at I-frames) to address specific limitations in the dependent claims.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv is inappropriate because the parallel district court litigation is in its initial stages. Key milestones such as a trial date, claim construction hearings, and significant discovery have not yet occurred, meaning an inter partes review (IPR) would be a more efficient resolution.
  • Petitioner also contended that denial under §325(d) would be improper. Although Carmel was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement during prosecution, it was never substantively analyzed by the Examiner. Furthermore, the key secondary references central to the petition's arguments—Mattavelli and Wang—were never before the Patent Office.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-9 of the ’849 patent as unpatentable.