WOWZA MEDIA SYSTEMS, LLC and COFFEE CUP PARTNERS, INC.v.ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 8, 2013

12252357 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2013)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 12
571-272-7822 Date Entered: 8 April 2013

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

WOWZA MEDIA SYSTEMS, LLC
and COFFEE CUP PARTNERS, INC.
Petitioner

v.

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED
Patent Owner
____________

Case IPR2013-00054 (TLG)
Patent 8,051,287 B2
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
DENYING INTER PARTES REVIEW
37 C.F.R. § 42.108

IPR2013-00054
Patent 8,051,287 B2

2

I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10, 12-14, 16, 17,
21, 23-26, 28, 29, and 33 of the '287 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 et seq. Patent
Owner submitted a preliminary response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b) on February
20, 2013. Paper No. 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
§ 314(a), which provides as follows:
THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be
instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in
the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313
shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.

For the reasons that follow, the Board, acting on behalf of the Director,
denies the petition.

A. The '287 Patent (EX 1001)
The challenged patent relates to establishing an encrypted communication
session. Figure 1 of the '287 patent is reproduced below.
IPR201
Patent 8

F
110 (e.g
first clie
9-15.
H
include
ll. 15-18
of softw
session
3-00054
,051,287 B
igure 1 is
., a FLAS
nt comput
andshakes
cryptograp
. Howeve
are (e.g., a
145 with t
2
said to dep
H® Media
er 130 and
150a and
hic inform
r, the seco
newer FL
he server c
ict a netw
Server), c
a second
150b prec
ation that
nd client
ASH® Pl
omputer.
3

ork enviro
ommunic
client com
ede the se
client 130
computer
ayer progr
Id. at ll. 5
nment 100
ating over
puter 140
ssions 135
may not
140 may in
am) that c
6-59.
that inclu
a network
. '287 pate
and 145 a
recognize
clude a ne
an start an
des a serv
120 with
nt col. 8,
nd can
as such. I
wer versio
encrypted

er
a
ll.
d. at
n

IPR2013-00054
Patent 8,051,287 B2

4

Each handshake 150a and 150b may include a block of bytes that contain
random data. Id. at ll. 25-30. In particular, cryptographic information (e.g., for
use in an encryption key establishment protocol) can be included in a previously
existing section of the handshake 150 known to contain random bytes, allowing the
cryptographic information to be “hidden in plain sight” because the cryptographic
information appears to be random. Reverse engineering attempts (i.e., attempts to
discover the details of the communication protocol) can thus be handicapped while
providing interoperability with existing software. Id. at col. 7, l. 67 - col. 8, l. 8;
col. 9, ll. 23-46.

B. Representative Claim
Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 10, 12, 21, 23, and 33 are independent.
For purposes of this decision, claim 1 is representative. Each of the other
independent claims contains the same or substantially similar limitations to those
emphasized in claim 1, below. Further, in challenging each of the independent
claims, Petitioner relies on the same arguments with respect to the limitations in
controversy as represented by claim 1.

1. A method comprising:

establishing, based at least in part on cryptographic
information in a pre-defined portion of a handshake network
communication, a communication session to communicate a media
stream, wherein the pre-defined portion of the handshake network
communication is reserved for random data;

receiving through the communication session, as part of the
media stream, values of parameters relating to a sub media stream,
included in a first header portion of a first real-time, priority-based
network communication;
IPR2013-00054
Patent 8,051,287 B2

5

storing the values of the parameters;

obtaining through the communication session, as part of the
media stream, state information included in a control portion of a
second real-time, priority-based network communication and a data
payload included in the second network communication;

identifying, from the state information, a purpose of the second
network communication in relation to the media stream, and whether
a second header portion of the second network communication
includes one or more new values corresponding to one or more of the
parameters;

updating, when the second header portion includes the one or
more new values, one or more of the stored values based at least in
part on the one or more new values; and

processing the data payload based at least in part on the
identified purpose and the stored values of the parameters.

(Emphasis added.)

C. Claim Construction
As a step in our analysis for determining whether to institute a trial, we
determine the meaning of the claims. Consistent with the statute and the
legislative history of the AIA, the Board will construe the claims using the
broadest reasonable interpretation. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012); 37 CFR § 100(b). The claim language should
be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004). The Office must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim
IPR2013-00054
Patent 8,051,287 B2

6

language, taking into account any definitions presented in the specification. Id.
(citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
There is a “heavy presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and
customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366
(Fed. Cir. 2002). By “ordinary meaning” we refer to e.g., Biotec Biologische
Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Biocorp, Inc., 249 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed.
Cir. 2001) (finding no error in non-construction of “melting”); Mentor H/S, Inc. v.
Med. Device Alliance, Inc., 244 F.3d 1365, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding no error
in court’s refusal to construe “irrigating” and “frictional heat”).
Petitioner submits proposed constructions for several terms. Pet. 5-6.
However, of the constructions that are proposed by Petitioner, only the phrase
“reserved for random data” is material for purposes of this decision. Petitioner
submits that rather than its plain and ordinary meaning, “reserved for random data”
is to be construed as “[r]eserved for data produced in a manner where there was an
equal or approximately equal probability for each possible value.” However,
Petitioner provides no reasoning or evidence in support of why the phrase should
not be interpreted in accordance with its ordinary meaning. Accordingly, we do
not adopt Petitioner’s special meaning for the claim phrase “reserved for random
data.”
A claim term that is more pertinent to the issues raised in the Petition and
Preliminary Response than those raised by Petitioner is the word “pre-defined” as
used in representative claim 1. The '287 patent does not set forth or otherwise
indicate any special meaning for the term “pre-defined.” The dictionary definition
of the transitive verb “predefine” is “to define or determine in advance.”
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (1993). We conclude
that this comports with the plain and ordinary meaning, and therefore interpret a
IPR2013-00054
Patent 8,051,287 B2

7

“pre-defined” portion of the handshake network communication as a portion of the
handshake network communication that is defined or determined in advance.

D. Related Proceedings
According to Petitioner, the '287 patent is the subject of a patent
infringement lawsuit brought by the assignee (Patent Owner) Adobe Systems Inc.,
against Wowza, captioned Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Wowza Media Systems,
LLC, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. CV
11-02243. Pet. 1.

E. Prior Art
Petitioner cites the following prior art:
Edelman US 7,272,658 B1 Sep. 18, 2007
Hellman US 4,200,770 Apr. 29, 1980
Bousis US 2005/0129243 A1 Jun. 16, 2005
Camp US 2007/0076877 A1 Apr. 5, 2007
Milan Toth, “Low level AS3 – Establishing an RTMP connection
with Socket and ByteArray,” available at http://www.actionscript.org/
resources/articles/630/1/Low-level-AS3---Establishing-an-RTMP-
connection-with-Socket-and-ByteArray/Page1.html, June 2007 (“Toth”).

Simon Horman, “SSL and TLS An Overview of a Secure Communication
Protocol,” Security Mini-Conf at Linux.Conf.AU, pp.1-23, Apr.2005 (“Horman”).

1. Edelman (Ex. 1006)
According to the face of the Edelman patent, the patent is assigned to Patent
Owner Adobe Systems Incorporated. Edelman is directed to a real-time priority-
IPR2013-00054
Patent 8,051,287 B2

8

based communication system for communicating media streams comprised of
multiple media message sub-streams. Edelman col. 3, ll. 6-9.

2. Toth (Ex. 1008)
Toth describes reverse engineering an RTMP (Real-Time Messaging
Protocol) communication by capturing and analyzing data between a client and
server, for the purpose of establishing a connection to an RTMP server with a fake
agent and referrer. Toth 1. The first part of the handshake is determined to be a
0x03 byte followed by 1536 random bytes. Id. at 3.

3. Hellman (Ex. 1010)
Hellman describes that a generated secure cipher key may be used to
encipher and decipher messages transmitted over an insecure communication
channel. Hellman col. 2, ll. 14-22.

4. Horman (Ex. 1011 )
Horman describes the SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) protocol that makes use
of asymmetric encryption for verification and when negotiating a secret key that
will be used for symmetric encryption of bulk data transfers. Horman 1 (§ 1.1.1).
Horman further describes that in the SSL protocol an RSA1 client key exchange
message consists of the handshake header followed by an encoded pre-master
secret that is encrypted using the server’s key as sent in the server certificate
message. Id. at 12.
The unnumbered Figure at page 12 of Horman is reproduced below.

1 RSA was a well-known Asymmetric Encryption algorithm. Id.
IPR201
Patent 8

T
handsha
“random
T
(highest
generate
bytes pr
will be
an RSA
2 There
maximu
number
O. Freie
(1996),
support
28-29.
3-00054
,051,287 B
he Figure
ke header
.”
he pre-ma
version n
d by a cry
ovide the
derived. Id
key by ra
is a minor
m version
48 appear
r, The SSL
the client
ed by the c
2
depicts an
, 0x00, 0x0
ster secret
umber) sup
ptographi
client’s inp
. The (en
ndomly ge
error in H
supported
s to be inc
Protocol
generates a
lient and 4
RSA Clie
2, random
from the c
ported by
c random n
ut into the
crypted) p
nerating p

orman, wh
by the cli
orrect. Ac
Version 3
48-byte p
6 (not 48)
9

nt Key Ex
padding,
lient cons
the client
umber ge
master se
re-master
ad bytes.

ich refers
ent “follow
cording to
.0, Transpo
re-master
securely-
change Me
0x00, “cli
ists of the
followed
nerator.2 T
cret from
secret is p
Id.

to a two-b
ed by” 48
Petitione
rt Layer S
secret from
generated
ssage that
ent versio
maximum
by 46 rand
he “comb
which the
added to th
yte indica
random b
r’s Exhibit
ecurity W
the new
random by
consists o
n,” and
version
om bytes
ined” 48
session ke
e length o
tion of the
ytes. Thi
1012, Ala
orking Gr
est version
tes. Freie

f a
ys
f

s
n
oup

r
IPR2013-00054
Patent 8,051,287 B2

10

5. Bousis (Ex. 1014)
Bousis describes that an encrypted data-encryption key can be hidden in the
random header of a message exchanged between two parties. Bousis Abstract;
¶ [0005]. The random material will be replaced by consecutive bytes from the
encrypted random key. ¶ [0021]; Fig. 4.

6. Camp (Ex. 1015)
Camp describes (¶ [0056]) that when secure data communication is desired
between two terminals, one terminal may generate a keypad by obtaining a random
data sequence from a local noise source. The random data sequence constitutes a
shared secret known to both terminals, which may be used as the keypad for
encrypting and decrypting messages sent between the terminals. ¶ [0053].
An n-bit key sequence K may be extracted from the L-bit random data
sequence S (the keypad) as a secret key for encrypting and decrypting transmitted
data. ¶ [0069]. A secure, key-encrypted channel can thus be established.
¶ [0013].

F. Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner alleges that each of the challenged claims is obvious under
§ 103(a) over the combination of Edelman, Toth, and Hellman, Bousis, Horman, or
Camp. Pet. 5.
Petitioner also alleges that the claims are obvious over various other
combinations of references in the alternative, but does not provide support in the
Petition for the allegations by applying the combinations as proposed to any of the
claims as is required by our rules. For example, Petitioner alleges that “[e]ach of
IPR2013-00054
Patent 8,051,287 B2

11

the challenged claims is obvious under § 103(a) over Edelman in view of Toth and
further in view of either Hellman or Horman, and further in view of either Bousis
or Camp and further in view of any of Cole, Giffin, Lucena, Rowland, and Zander.
Pet. 5.
Each Petition must contain “a detailed explanation of the significance of the
evidence including material facts. . . .” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). However, this
Petition does not explain how the references to be applied in the alternative might
remedy deficiencies in the other references, nor applies the references as proposed
to be combined in the alternative against any specific claim. In short, Petitioner’s
alternative allegations fail to “specify where each element of the claim is found . .
. .” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). “The Board may exclude or give no weight to the
evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific
portions of the evidence that support the challenge.” Id. § 42.104(b)(5).
Of the above-mentioned references, Petitioner cites Raike (Ex. 1016) as a
“Cryptography Reference[]” and the following references (Ex. 1017-1021) as
“Information Hiding References”: Cole, Giffin, Lucena, Rowland, and Zander.
Pet. 30; 45-46. As Petitioner provides insufficient analysis of these references as
applied to the specific limitations of the claims, we do not consider these
references further. See discussion supra; 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4), (b)(5).

II. ANALYSIS
A. The Petition
Initially, we note that the Petition’s claim chart, to the extent directed to the
first step of representative claim 1, which represents the material not taught by
Edelman alone, simply refers to “Section VIII.A.” Pet. 46. Section VIII.A spans
over 16 pages of the Petition. This is significant because this portion of the claim
IPR2013-00054
Patent 8,051,287 B2

12

contains the recitation “cryptographic information in a predefined portion of a
handshake network” challenged by the Patent Owner in responding to the Petition.
Prelim. Resp. 14-25. In that 16-page section, Petitioner offers four different
references to be combined in the alternative with Edelman and Toth -- Hellman,
Horman, Bousis, and Camp. However, that discussion referenced by the claim
chart, while lengthy, provides little or no guidance as to where the challenged
recitation is found in these references.
The Petition’s claim chart also refers to the entire Sherman Declaration (Ex.
1002; Declaration of Dr. Alan T. Sherman) in general. The Declaration is 100
pages in length and appears, for the most part, simply to track and repeat the
arguments for unpatentability presented in the Petition. The lengthy Sherman
Declaration is therefore no more helpful that the Petition in determining where the
challenged recitation is found in the references. Thus, as the Petition refers only to
the Declaration in general, and not to any specific testimony set forth in the
Declaration that may relate to specific claim limitations, we have not found the
Declaration helpful as support for Petitioner’s assertions. See Pet. 35, 38, 41, 44
(referring to Sherman Decl. § III.B, entitled “Guidance from KSR”). Cf. 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.104(b)(4); 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).

B. Difference Between the Challenged Claims and the Teachings of Edelman
and Toth

Petitioner submits that there is only one difference between the existing
RTMP protocol and the challenged claims:
The only difference between the invention claimed in the ’287
patent and Adobe’s preexisting RTMP communications, as set forth in
Toth and Edelman, is the requirement that cryptographic information
be inserted in the random data section of the existing RTMP
IPR2013-00054
Patent 8,051,287 B2

13

handshake (or some other preexisting portion of a network handshake
communication reserved for random data) and that that information be
used for encrypting and decrypting the communication.

Pet 9-10 (emphasis added).
Patent Owner in the Preliminary Response does not challenge the substance
of Petitioner’s statement. For purposes of this decision we will presume, therefore,
that the difference between representative claim 1 and the other challenged claims
and the combined teachings of Edelman and Toth is substantially as set forth by
Petitioner.
Consistently throughout, the Petition refers to the claims as calling for
placing the cryptographic information in a “preexisting” portion of the handshake
communication. See, e.g., Pet. at each of pages 9, 19, and 31-45. The Petition
refers to the “pre-defined” portion of the communication only when directly
quoting the claims. See Pet. 46-58 (claim chart). We observe, however, that the
claims uniformly call for placing cryptographic information in a “pre-defined”
portion of a handshake network communication, rather than a “preexisting” portion
as indicated by Petitioner. We do not accept this substitution by Petitioner, as it
affects the meaning of the claim. “Preexist” is a transitive verb that means “to
exist before (something) >>monuments that preexist written history<<.” Webster’s
Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (1993). As we have noted supra
(§ I.C), the ordinary meaning of a “pre-defined” portion of a handshake network
communication is a portion of the communication that is defined or determined in
advance. Petitioner’s substitution, which we reject, would thus render the claims
broader in scope when compared to their scope under a proper interpretation of the
recited claim language.

IPR2013-00054
Patent 8,051,287 B2

14

C. Obviousness of the Challenged Claims over Edelman, Toth, and Hellman
With respect to Hellman, Petitioner cites column 2 of the reference, with its
description of generating a secure cipher key that is used to encipher and decipher
messages transmitted over an insecure communication channel. Pet. 33-34; see
also Hellman, § I.E.3 supra. Petitioner concludes that it would have been obvious,
in light of Hellman, to “establish an encrypted RTMP session by inserting
cryptographic information in the preexisting random data section of the RTMP
handshake. . . .” Pet. 34.
Petitioner continues, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR:
Combining the RTMP References and Hellman “only unites old
elements with no change in their respective functions”; is just a
“combination of familiar elements according to known methods [with]
no more than predictable results”; “simply arranges old elements with
each performing the same function it had been known to perform
before” and “yields no more than one would expect.” KSR [KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)], 550 U.S. at 416-17. Also,
design incentives and other market forces would prompt this
predictable variation of RTMP. See id. at 417. Also, the teachings of
the references described above, as well as design considerations and
the demands known in the marketplace would prompt a person of
ordinary skill to modify RTMP, as set forth in the RTMP References,
when combined with Hellman in the fashion claimed. Doing so
would have eliminated the need for additional handshake messages —
which slow the process and expend processing power — and would
have the additional benefit of obfuscating the cryptographic
information, all of which were known design objectives and goals for
computer systems and encryption systems.

Pet. 34-35.
We do not agree with Petitioner’s obviousness analysis based on KSR. In
our view, Petitioner has failed to establish certain prerequisites for demonstrating
IPR2013-00054
Patent 8,051,287 B2

15

prima facie obviousness under KSR. As noted by the Federal Circuit, KSR does
not authorize conclusory results.
Although the obviousness analysis should “take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ,” the Supreme Court emphasized that this evidentiary
flexibility does not relax the requirement that, “[t]o facilitate review,
this analysis should be made explicit.” Id. [KSR] at 418, 127 S.Ct.
1727 (citing [In re] Kahn, 441 F.3d [977] at 988 (“[R]ejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”)).

Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir.
2009). Following the same approach that was rejected by KSR, Petitioner’s
challenge of the claims over Edelman, Toth, and Horman provides mere
conclusory statements in support of the legal conclusion of obviousness. Petitioner
does not identify any teaching in the applied prior art of establishing an encrypted
RTMP session by inserting cryptographic information in a preexisting random data
section of the RTMP handshake. Further, Petitioner offers no convincing
rationale, in light of the teachings of the prior art, with respect to why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have chosen to establish an encrypted RTMP session
by inserting cryptographic information in a pre-defined portion of the RTMP
handshake reserved for random data. As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), a
Petition must specify where each element of a challenged claim is found in the
prior art patents or printed publications. See discussion supra. Petitioner has
failed to do so.

IPR2013-00054
Patent 8,051,287 B2

16

D. Obviousness of the Challenged Claims over Edelman, Toth, and Horman
Petitioner submits that Horman teaches “inserting cryptographic information
into network communications in a preexisting portion of the communication
containing random data. . . .” Pet. 35 (emphasis added). In particular, Petitioner
points to Horman’s disclosure of an RSA Client Key Exchange Message (Horman,
§ I.E.4 supra). Pet. 36-37. “[D]uring the Client Key Exchange step of the
SSL/TLS handshake process, cryptographic information is inserted into a
preexisting field of the handshake communication that is padded with random
PKCS padding. . . .” Id. at 36.
Petitioner notes, correctly, that in Horman the “pre-master secret is used to
generate a cryptographic key.” Pet. 37. From the description in Horman of
inserting cryptographic information “into a preexisting field” of a handshake
communication that is padded with random data, Petitioner concludes that it would
have been obvious, in light of Horman, to “establish an encrypted RTMP session
by inserting cryptographic information in the preexisting random data section of
the RTMP handshake. . . .” Id. Petitioner relies on KSR as support for obviousness
insofar as KSR discusses uniting old elements with no change in respective
functions, combining familiar elements according to known methods with
predictable results, and design incentives and other market forces. Id. at 38.
However, KSR is not apposite, because Petitioner does not identify any
teaching in Horman or any of the other applied prior art of establishing an
encrypted RTMP session by inserting cryptographic information in a preexisting
random data section of the RTMP handshake. Further, Petitioner does not identify
the “preexisting field” in Horman into which cryptographic information is alleged
to be inserted.
IPR2013-00054
Patent 8,051,287 B2

17

We have reviewed Horman and Petitioner has not identified any suggestion
in the reference of inserting cryptographic information into a pre-defined (as
opposed to preexisting) random data field. Horman describes inserting
cryptographic information -- a pre-master secret that consists of an encrypted
version of the client version and randomly generated bytes -- into the fields
reserved for the cryptographic information, labeled “client version” and “random.”
See Horman; § I.E.4 supra. But this is not a pre-defined random data field
because it does not contain random data. Harmon does describe that randomly
generated pad bytes (“random pad. . .”) are added to the message to render the
Exchange Message the proper length of the RSA key. However, this “padding” of
the message length is not the same as inserting cryptographic information in a pre-
defined portion of the communication containing random data, as the claims
require.
Further, Petitioner offers no convincing rationale, in light of the teachings of
the prior art, with respect to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen
to establish an encrypted RTMP session by inserting cryptographic information in
a pre-defined portion of the RTMP handshake that is reserved for random data.
The Petition must specify where each element of a challenged claim is found
in the prior art patents or printed publications. Petitioner has failed to do so. 37
C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).

E. Obviousness of the Challenged Claims over Edelman, Toth, and Bousis
Bousis describes that an encrypted data-encryption key can be hidden in the
random header of a message exchanged between two parties. Bousis Abstract;
¶ [0005]. However, the term “header” in Bousis does not refer to a conventional
message header. As pointed out by Patent Owner, Bousis teaches that “the header
IPR2013-00054
Patent 8,051,287 B2

18

principle should not be construed to represent a header according to some pre-
existent standard for transmission or storage. In this context, the header simply
means some part ‘at or near the beginning of the data exchange’.” ¶ [0005].
As shown in Figure 3, Bousis describes writing data that is encrypted with a
randomly generated key into a file, encrypting the randomly generated key with a
shared secret key, hiding the encrypted random key in the encrypted data file, and
finally transferring all the data for retrieval and decryption using the shared secret
key and the retrieved random key. Bousis ¶¶ [0018]-[0019]. The encrypted data
and the encrypted random key may thus be placed into the same file. ¶ [0020]. A
number (Nh) of bytes of random material may be placed at the beginning of the
file, appending Nd bytes of encrypted data after the Nh bytes. Id.; Fig. 4.
Bousis also describes hiding the encrypted key. A shared function F that is
known by both the transmitting and receiving systems can be used to return a
selection Nr bytes from the Nh bytes3 of random material. For each of the returned
bytes, the random material will be replaced by consecutive bytes from the
encrypted random key. Bousis ¶ [0021]; Fig. 4. By distributing the bytes of the
encrypted random key over a pool of random material, and appending to this the
encrypted material itself, a cryptanalyst cannot know which bytes in the
transmitted data belong to the random material, to the encrypted data, and to the
encrypted random key. ¶ [0028].
As recognized by Petitioner (Pet. 39), however, Bousis does not disclose
inserting cryptographic information in a preexisting handshake communication.
Petitioner asserts that in light of Bousis, it would have been obvious to “establish
an encrypted RTMP session by inserting cryptographic information in the

3 Bousis contains a typographical error in paragraph [0021], where “Nb” should be
“Nh.”
IPR2013-00054
Patent 8,051,287 B2

19

preexisting random data section of the RTMP handshake. . . .” Id. at 40. Petitioner
once again relies on KSR, for substantially the same principles as previously. See
supra. But Petitioner does not identify any teaching or suggestion in Edelman,
Toth, or Bousis with respect to establishing an encrypted RTMP session, much less
establishing such a session by inserting cryptographic information in a pre-defined
portion of an RTMP handshake that is reserved for random data.
Further, Petitioner offers no convincing rationale, in light of the teachings of
the prior art, with respect to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen
to establish an encrypted RTMP session by inserting cryptographic information
specifically in a pre-defined portion of the handshake that is reserved for random
data. Accordingly, we find insufficient support for the Petitioner’s conclusion that
“a person of ordinary skill would have known that inserting cryptographic
information in a handshake is simply a predictable combination” of Edelman, Toth,
and Bousis. Pet. 39.

F. Obviousness of the Challenged Claims over Edelman, Toth, and Camp
Petitioner cites portions of Camp (see Camp, § I.E.6 supra), and concludes,
without explanation, that it would have been obvious in light of Camp to establish
an encrypted RTMP session by inserting cryptographic information in the
preexisting random data section of the RTMP handshake. Pet. 43. Petitioner also
cites KSR. Id. at 43-44.
But as noted supra, Petitioner does not identify any teaching in Edelman,
Toth, or Camp of establishing an encrypted RTMP session by inserting
cryptographic information in a preexisting random data section of the RTMP
handshake. Further, as noted supra, Petitioner offers no convincing rationale, in
light of the teachings of the prior art, with respect to why one of ordinary skill in
IPR2013-00054
Patent 8,051,287 B2

20

the art would have chosen to establish an encrypted RTMP session by inserting
cryptographic information in a pre-defined portion of the RTMP handshake that is
reserved for random data.

III. CONCLUSION
The Petition does not persuade us that there is a reasonable likelihood that at
least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable based on the asserted grounds.
We therefore deny the petition for inter partes review and decline to institute trial
on any of the asserted grounds as to any of the challenged claims. 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.108.

IV. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that the petition is denied as to all challenged claims and no
trial is instituted.

IPR2013-00054
Patent 8,051,287 B2

21

For Patent Owner:
Lissi Mojica
Kevin Greenleaf
SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
Lmojica@slwip.com
Kgreenleaf@slwip.com

For Petitioner:

Barry F. Irwin
Brent Ray
KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
barry.irwin@kirkland.com
brent.ray@kirkland.com