Court Opinion

ID: 9390275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 15:01:10.903782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:33.262726
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1043   Document: 46     Page: 1   Filed: 04/27/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                    NETFLIX, INC.,
                      Appellant

                            v.

                      DIVX, LLC,
                        Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2022-1043
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-
 00511.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: April 27, 2023
                 ______________________

     MARK CHRISTOPHER FLEMING, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
 Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for appellant.
 Also represented by HARPER BATTS, JEFFREY LIANG,
 CHRISTOPHER SCOTT PONDER, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
 Hampton LLP, Menlo Park, CA; MATTHEW G. HALGREN,
 San Diego, CA.

    JEFFREY A. LAMKEN, MoloLamken LLP, Washington,
 DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by RAYINER
 HASHEM, MICHAEL GREGORY PATTILLO, JR.; NATHANIEL
Case: 22-1043    Document: 46      Page: 2    Filed: 04/27/2023

 2                                   NETFLIX, INC.   v. DIVX, LLC

 RUBIN, New York, NY; PARHAM HENDIFAR, NATHAN NOBU
 LOWENSTEIN, KENNETH J. WEATHERWAX, Lowenstein &
 Weatherwax LLP, Santa Monica, CA; BRIDGET SMITH, Los
 Angeles, CA.
                ______________________

     Before CHEN, MAYER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Netflix, Inc. appeals a final written decision of the
 United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial
 and Appeal Board (the “Board”) holding that it had failed
 to demonstrate that claims 1–3, 5, 6, 10–12, 14, and 15 (the
 “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,184,920 (the
 “ʼ920 patent”) are unpatentable. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX,
 LLC, No. IPR2020-00511, 2021 WL 3599429 (P.T.A.B. Aug.
 13, 2021) (“Board Decision”). For the reasons discussed
 below, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
                        BACKGROUND
     DivX, LLC owns the ’920 patent, which relates to
 decoding encrypted video content using a playback device.
 See ’920 patent col.8 ll.44–53. For present purposes,
 independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject
 matter. It recites:
     1. [1a] A method of decoding encrypted content
     using a playback device on which an active user en-
     cryption key is stored, where the content includes
     frames of video and at least a portion of a plurality
     of frames of video are encrypted using at least one
     frame encryption key, [1b] and the at least one
     frame encryption key is encrypted using a content
     encryption key, and one or more copies of the con-
     tent encryption key are each encrypted using one
     or more user encryption keys including the active
     user encryption key, the method comprising:
Case: 22-1043       Document: 46   Page: 3   Filed: 04/27/2023

 NETFLIX, INC.   v. DIVX, LLC                               3

     [1c] obtaining encrypted content using a playback
     device, where the content includes frames of video
     and at least a portion of a plurality of frames of
     video are encrypted using at least one frame en-
     cryption key;
     [1d] obtaining using the playback device a copy of
     the at least one frame encryption key that is en-
     crypted using a content encryption key and obtain-
     ing one or more copies of the content encryption key
     that are each encrypted using one or more user en-
     cryption keys including an active user encryption
     key stored on the playback device;
     [1e] decrypting one of the one or more copies of the
     content encryption key using the playback device
     and the active user encryption key; and
     [1f] playing back frames of the encrypted content
     using the playback device, where playing back
     frames of the encrypted content further comprises:
         [1g] identifying any portions of a frame
         that are encrypted;
         [1h] identifying the frame encryption key
         used to encrypt the identified portions of
         the frame;
         [1i] decrypting the identified frame encryp-
         tion key using the decrypted content en-
         cryption key;
         [1j] decrypting the encrypted portions of
         the frame using the decrypted identified
         frame encryption key; and
         [1k] decoding the unencrypted frame of
         video.
Case: 22-1043    Document: 46      Page: 4    Filed: 04/27/2023

 4                                   NETFLIX, INC.   v. DIVX, LLC

 Id. col.16 l.49–col.17 l.15 (bracketing added by the Board
 included).
     After DivX sued Netflix for infringement of the ’920 pa-
 tent, Netflix petitioned for inter partes review. J.A. 7004–
 92. Netflix’s petition asserted that: (1) claims 1 and 10
 were obvious over U.S. Patent Application No.
 2005/0177741 (“Chen”) in view of an earlier DivX patent
 application, U.S. Patent Application No. 2004/0081333
 (“Grab-333”); (2) claims 1–3 and 10–12 were obvious over
 Chen in view of Grab-333 and U.S. Patent Application No.
 2005/0063541 (“Candelore-541”); and (3) claims 1, 3, 5, 6,
 10, 12, 14 and 15 were obvious over Chen in view of Grab-
 333 and International Patent Application No. WO
 2005/008385 (“Kocher”). J.A. 7013.
     In instituting review, the Board noted that Netflix and
 DivX offered divergent interpretations of the “scrambled
 broadcast signal,” J.A. 2926, described in Chen. See J.A.
 7213. The Board explained that Netflix pointed to Chen’s
 descrambling of a scrambled broadcast signal as meeting
 limitation 1[c] of the ’920 patent. J.A. 7213. DivX, by con-
 trast, asserted that “video frames do not exist in Chen’s
 scrambled broadcast signal . . . either when scrambled or
 descrambled because the broadcast signal is sent to the re-
 ceiver as a transport stream, which . . . does not correspond
 to video frames.” J.A. 7213.
     In its final written decision, the Board concluded that
 Netflix had not established by a preponderance of the evi-
 dence that the prior art taught or suggested limitation 1[c].
 See Board Decision, 2021 WL 3599429, at *11–19. In the
 Board’s view, Netflix had failed to show that one of ordi-
 nary skill in the art would have understood Chen to teach
 that “frames” are obtained on the receive side of a condi-
 tional access system prior to descrambling as limitation
 1[c] requires. Id. at *14–19.
     The Board recognized that Grab-333 disclosed “a de-
 crypting digital decoder ‘including a video decryption
Case: 22-1043       Document: 46   Page: 5    Filed: 04/27/2023

 NETFLIX, INC.   v. DIVX, LLC                                5

 module configured to receive a protected input stream of
 compressed video content,’ which stream contains ‘at least
 a set of encrypted frames and frame decryption information
 necessary to create a set of decrypted frames through de-
 cryption of the set of encrypted frames.’” Id. at *10 (quoting
 J.A. 2959). The Board further recognized that Netflix con-
 tended that the combination of Chen and Grab-333 ren-
 dered claim 1 obvious, id. at *7, and that Grab-333 taught
 obtaining encrypted content as limitation 1[c] requires, id.
 at *11 (citing J.A. 7035). The Board, however, did not ad-
 dress whether a combination of Chen and Grab-333 taught
 or suggested limitation 1[c], instead electing to “focus on
 [Netflix’s] arguments directed to Chen.” Id. at *13.
      The Board also concluded that Netflix had failed to
 demonstrate that independent claim 10 of the ’920 patent
 was unpatentable. Id. at *19. It explained that “claim 10
 is directed to a playback device, inter alia, comprising
 memory comprising a playback application and a proces-
 sor, wherein the processor is configured by the playback
 application to perform essentially the same steps recited in
 independent claim 1.” Id.; see ’920 patent col.17 l.42–col.18
 l.23. The Board further noted that claim 10 contains a lim-
 itation, limitation 10[d], that “corresponds to limitation
 1[c].” Board Decision, 2021 WL 3599429, at *10. 1 The
 Board thus concluded that “for the same reasons” Netflix
 had failed to demonstrate that the prior art taught or sug-
 gested limitation 1[c], it had likewise failed to demonstrate
 that the prior art taught or suggested limitation 10[d]. Id.
 at *19. Furthermore, because it had determined that Net-
 flix had not shown that the prior art taught limitations 1[c]

     1    Limitation 10[d] recites: “obtain encrypted content,
 where the content includes frames of video and at least a
 portion of a plurality of frames of video are encrypted using
 at least one frame encryption key.” ’920 patent col.18 ll.1–
 4.
Case: 22-1043    Document: 46      Page: 6   Filed: 04/27/2023

 6                                  NETFLIX, INC.   v. DIVX, LLC

 and 10[d], the Board did not reach Netflix’s arguments re-
 garding other claim limitations, including arguments
 based upon Candelore-541 and Kocher. See id. at *20.
     Netflix then appealed to this court. We have jurisdic-
 tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
                        DISCUSSION
     We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and its
 findings of fact for substantial evidence. See Kaken Pharm.
 Co. v. Iancu, 952 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2020); In re
 Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Substantial
 evidence requires the reviewing court to ask whether a rea-
 sonable person might find that the evidentiary record sup-
 ports the agency’s conclusion.” In re Google LLC, 56 F.4th
 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citation and internal quotation
 marks omitted).
      Netflix advances three principal arguments on appeal.
 It first contends that the Board erred by construing limita-
 tion 1[c] of the ’920 patent to require obtaining whole
 frames of video content before any decryption begins. Sec-
 ond, Netflix argues that the Board improperly narrowed
 Chen’s disclosure to an embodiment set forth in another
 prior art reference, and, finally, it asserts that the Board
 disregarded “the contribution of [Grab-333] to the
 Chen/[Grab-333] combination, even though [Grab-333] dis-
 closed the transmission and receipt of whole frames (por-
 tions of which were encrypted) that the Board found
 lacking in Chen.” Appellant’s Br. 37. We address each of
 these arguments in turn.
                              I.
     Claim 1 describes “[a] method of decoding encrypted
 content” that begins with the playback device “obtaining
 encrypted content . . . where the content includes frames of
Case: 22-1043       Document: 46   Page: 7    Filed: 04/27/2023

 NETFLIX, INC.   v. DIVX, LLC                                7

 video.” ’920 patent col.16 ll.49, 58–59 (emphases added). 2
 According to Netflix, the Board erred in concluding that
 this language requires “an entire frame to be obtained or
 assembled before decryption begins.” Appellant’s Br. 41.
 In its view, claim 1 “does not restrict itself to obtaining
 video content on a frame-by-frame basis before decryption,”
 id. at 40, and “nowhere prescribes an ordered sequence of
 steps for when decryption of transmitted content must oc-
 cur after encrypted content is obtained on the receive end,
 including whether decryption must occur before or after
 any [transport stream] packets are reconstituted into
 whole frames,” id. at 41.
      Because Netflix failed to properly present these claim
 construction arguments to the Board, however, we decline
 to address them on appeal. See In re Google Tech. Holdings
 LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Meritorious or
 not, Google never presented these arguments to the Board”
 and therefore “forfeited both arguments.”); In re Baxter
 Int’l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Absent
 exceptional circumstances, we generally do not consider ar-
 guments that the applicant failed to present to the Board.”
 (citations omitted)). In its preliminary response, DivX as-
 serted that Chen did not disclose obtaining encrypted con-
 tent where the content includes frames of video as
 limitation 1[c] requires because “Chen’s receiver . . . cannot
 obtain or process any frames, encrypted or otherwise, until
 after descrambling is complete.” J.A. 7122. DivX empha-
 sized, moreover, that “Chen’s descrambler receives
 transport stream packets, and a transport stream packet is
 not a frame.” J.A. 7122; see also J.A. 7125–27.
     In its institution decision, the Board recognized DivX’s
 argument that limitation 1[c] was not met by obtaining
 transport stream packets. See J.A. 7210–11. It further

     2  Digital video consists of a sequence of images called
 “frames.” J.A. 2958.
Case: 22-1043    Document: 46      Page: 8    Filed: 04/27/2023

 8                                   NETFLIX, INC.   v. DIVX, LLC

 recognized that DivX contended that a “frame” could not
 exist on Chen’s receive side until multiple transport stream
 packets were decrypted. J.A. 7211–13. Following institu-
 tion, moreover, DivX, in its patent owner response, like-
 wise emphasized that “[a] frame cannot exist on the
 receiving side until it is recovered from multiple [transport
 stream] packets,” which could not “happen until the scram-
 bled [transport stream] packets are descrambled.” J.A.
 7352. DivX further asserted that Chen did not teach or
 suggest the requirements of limitation 1[c] because even if
 “any frames were eventually obtained . . . those frames
 would not be encrypted.” J.A. 7354.
     Despite being on notice of DivX’s interpretation of lim-
 itation 1[c], however, Netflix’s submissions to the Board
 did not adequately present the argument that this limita-
 tion does not require obtaining assembled frames prior to
 decryption. Nor did Netflix ask the Board for a construc-
 tion of limitation 1[c] which covered obtaining portions of
 disassembled frames as opposed to assembled frames. See
 Board Decision, 2021 WL 3599429, at *6. Instead, Netflix
 focused its attention on attempting to demonstrate that
 Chen should not be confined to the conditional access sys-
 tem described in a textbook on digital television, see Mark
 Massel, DIGITAL TELEVISION: DVB-T, COFDM & ATSC 8-
 VSB (2nd ed. 2008) (“Massel”), J.A. 5020–22, 5127–29, a
 system that transmits transport stream packets rather
 than whole frames and which reconstitutes whole frames
 after their components have been decrypted. See, e.g., J.A.
 7444–51. Netflix further argued that another reference,
 see U.S. Patent Application No. 2004/0181666 (“Candelore-
 666”), J.A. 3908–48, taught that conditional access systems
 can transmit video frames that are not divided into
 transport stream packets. See J.A. 7446–48. Additionally,
 Netflix argued that a skilled artisan “would have known
 how to process video frames in [transport stream] packets,
 which included information in headers and payloads that
Case: 22-1043       Document: 46      Page: 9   Filed: 04/27/2023

 NETFLIX, INC.   v. DIVX, LLC                                  9

 [skilled artisans] used to identify video frames in the
 [transport stream].” J.A. 7452–53.
      Importantly, however, because Netflix’s submissions to
 the Board did not sufficiently raise or develop the claim
 construction arguments it now advances—that limitation
 1[c] does not mandate an ordered sequence of steps for
 when decryption of transmitted content must occur or re-
 quire obtaining whole frames—it forfeited its right to raise
 those contentions on appeal. See Google Tech., 980 F.3d at
 863 (“We have regularly stated and applied the important
 principle that a position not presented in the tribunal un-
 der review will not be considered on appeal in the absence
 of exceptional circumstances.”); Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Bax-
 ter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (explain-
 ing that this court may decline to consider an argument
 “[i]f a party fail[ed] to raise [that] argument before the trial
 court, or present[ed] only a skeletal or undeveloped argu-
 ment to the trial court”). Furthermore, while, during oral
 argument before the Board, Netflix referenced portions of
 the claim construction arguments it now advances, see J.A.
 7820–23, 7863, we conclude that these statements were,
 under the particular circumstances presented here, insuf-
 ficient to preserve such arguments. See, e.g., ABS Glob.,
 Inc. v. Cytonome/ST, LLC, 984 F.3d 1017, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
 2021) (concluding that a party forfeited an argument that
 was first raised at oral argument); Dell Inc. v. Acceleron,
 LLC, 884 F.3d 1364, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining
 that unless the Board “choose[s] to exercise its waiver au-
 thority,” it is “obligated to dismiss . . . untimely argu-
 ment[s] . . . raised for the first time during oral argument”).
 We therefore affirm the Board’s interpretation of limitation
 1[c].
                                II.
    We next turn to Netflix’s contention that the Board’s
 analysis of the prior art was flawed because it improperly
 narrowed Chen’s disclosure to the conditional access
Case: 22-1043    Document: 46     Page: 10   Filed: 04/27/2023

 10                                 NETFLIX, INC.   v. DIVX, LLC

 system described in Massel. According to Netflix, while
 Massel describes a conditional access system which trans-
 mits video content using transport stream packets, Chen is
 not limited to any particular networking protocol or trans-
 mission mechanism. In Netflix’s view, Chen’s disclosure is
 “broad enough to cover conditional access systems that
 transmitted whole frames,” as well as systems that recon-
 stitute transport stream packets into whole frames either
 before or after decryption. Appellant’s Br. 37.
      We conclude, however, that substantial evidence sup-
 ports the Board’s determination that Chen does not teach
 or suggest obtaining “frames” on the receive side before
 they are reassembled after descrambling. See Board Deci-
 sion, 2021 WL 3599429, at *11–19. As a preliminary mat-
 ter, we note that the word “frame” does not appear in Chen.
 See J.A. 2925–44. To the contrary, as the Board correctly
 noted, “Chen is silent with respect to ‘frames,’ including
 when frames are obtained on the receive side of Figure 1.”
 Board Decision, 2021 WL 3599429, at *16.
     Before the Board, DivX presented extensive declara-
 tion and documentary evidence related to how a skilled ar-
 tisan would understand Chen’s disclosure. See id. at *11–
 19. Specifically, DivX presented evidence that: (1) broad-
 cast systems, such as the one transmitting Chen’s scram-
 bled broadcast signal, are prone to transmission errors and
 commercial broadcasters therefore relied upon packet-
 based transmission streams, id. at *11; see J.A. 5370–72,
 6511–12, 7347–48; (2) the bit stream created by a broad-
 caster is split up into variable-length data packets to form
 a packetized elementary stream, but this packetized ele-
 mentary stream is subsequently broken up into smaller,
 fixed-length packets to form a transport stream, see J.A.
 5021–22, 5127–28, 5371–76, 5936, 6512–13, 7121–25,
 7347–50; (3) transport stream packets, which are typically
 only 188 bytes long, do not correspond to frames, see J.A.
 2926, 5127–28, 5373–74, 7123, 7347–48; (4) when the
 scrambled broadcast signal arrives at Chen’s descrambler,
Case: 22-1043       Document: 46   Page: 11   Filed: 04/27/2023

 NETFLIX, INC.   v. DIVX, LLC                              11

 J.A. 2926, it does so as a transport stream and, consistent
 with digital video broadcasting standards, decryption
 takes place at the transport stream level, see J.A. 5340,
 5379, 5846, 6511–13, 7351–52, 7504; and (5) no frame is
 obtained on the receive side of Chen until after descram-
 bling, i.e., decrypting, a sufficient number of transport
 stream packets to reconstitute a frame, see J.A. 5020–22,
 5127–28, 5340, 5381, 5386, 6511–13, 7126–28, 7349–55.
 We see no reversible error in the Board’s decision to credit
 DivX’s evidence that a skilled artisan would understand
 Chen to address a conventional video broadcast system
 where a receiver obtains encrypted transport stream pack-
 ets rather than assembled frames and where, by the time
 a frame is reassembled on Chen’s receive side, it is no
 longer encrypted as claim 1 requires. See Board Decision,
 2021 WL 3599429, at *14 (concluding that Netflix had not
 established that in Chen’s system “frames are obtained be-
 fore they are reassembled after descrambling”); see also
 Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH v. Eli Lilly & Co., 8 F.4th 1349,
 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (explaining that “what a piece of prior
 art teaches presents a question of fact that is reviewed for
 substantial evidence”).
      We conclude, moreover, that the Board did not err in
 rejecting Netflix’s argument that Chen’s disclosure was not
 limited to the transmission of transport stream packets be-
 cause Candelore-666, J.A. 3924, 3945–46, 4426–27, dis-
 closes a conditional access embodiment that transmits
 video frames without dividing them into transport stream
 packets. See J.A. 7446–49. As the Board reasonably deter-
 mined, Netflix failed to show that a skilled artisan “would
 have understood that Chen’s broadcast signal in Figure 1
 encompasses the type of internet transmission taught in
 Candelore-666’s Figures 19G and 19F.” Board Decision,
 2021 WL 3599429, at *15 (emphases added). We therefore
 affirm the Board’s determination that Netflix failed to es-
 tablish that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have
Case: 22-1043    Document: 46       Page: 12   Filed: 04/27/2023

 12                                   NETFLIX, INC.   v. DIVX, LLC

 understood Chen to obtain encrypted frames as recited in
 the Challenged Claims.” Id. at *18.
                             III.
     Finally, we turn to Netflix’s argument related to Grab-
 333. According to Netflix, Grab-333 “unquestionably in-
 volves the transmission and receipt of whole frames before
 decryption.” Appellant’s Br. 64. Netflix contends, moreo-
 ver, that the Board erred by failing to adequately assess
 “[Grab-333] or the implications of combining Chen with
 [Grab-333]—even though the Board acknowledged that
 Netflix’s argument was based not just ‘on how one of ordi-
 nary skill in the art would have understood Chen’ but also
 on ‘whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have com-
 bined the teachings of Chen and Grab-333.’” Id. at 60
 (quoting Board Decision, 2021 WL 3599429, at *12).
     We agree. Contrary to DivX’s assertions, see Appellee’s
 Br. 64, Netflix did not invoke Grab-333 solely for its teach-
 ings on partial encryption. To the contrary, Netflix’s peti-
 tion emphasized that “Grab-333 teaches a method of
 decoding encrypted content using a playback device,”
 which “receives protected and compressed video” and “de-
 crypts each encrypted frame.” J.A. 7026 (emphasis added).
 Netflix’s petition further asserted that Grab-333, like
 Chen, “teaches obtaining encrypted content using a play-
 back device (e.g., decrypting digital video decoder), where
 the content includes frames of video.” J.A. 7035. In its re-
 ply, likewise, Netflix stated that “Chen and [Grab-333]
 both teach encrypting/decrypting video frames.” J.A. 7461
 (emphasis added); see also J.A. 7744. Indeed, in its final
 written decision, the Board acknowledged that Netflix ar-
 gued that Grab-333 taught “obtaining encrypted content
 using a playback device . . . where the content includes
 frames of video” as limitation 1[c] requires. Board Deci-
 sion, 2021 WL 3599429, at *11 (citations and internal quo-
 tation marks omitted).
Case: 22-1043       Document: 46   Page: 13   Filed: 04/27/2023

 NETFLIX, INC.   v. DIVX, LLC                             13

      Because the Board erred in not adequately assessing
 Netflix’s arguments regarding limitation 1[c] based upon a
 combination of Chen and Grab-333, we vacate its determi-
 nation that Netflix failed to demonstrate that the Chal-
 lenged Claims are unpatentable and remand with
 instructions that it determine whether Chen in combina-
 tion with Grab-333 teaches or suggests obtaining en-
 crypted content at the frame level, the disclosure it found
 lacking in Chen alone. 3 In this regard, even accepting that
 “Chen’s and Grab-333’s scrambling and encryption opera-
 tions are not operating on the same data structures be-
 cause Chen applies to transport stream packets whereas
 Grab-333 applies to frames,” J.A. 7212, we reject DivX’s ar-
 gument that a skilled artisan would therefore necessarily
 lack a motivation to combine teachings from the two refer-
 ences. We leave it to the Board on remand, however, to
 determine whether a skilled artisan would have been mo-
 tivated to combine the relevant teachings of Chen and
 Grab-333 with a reasonable expectation of success. See Re-
 gents of Univ. of Cal. v. Broad Inst., Inc., 903 F.3d 1286,
 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Whether a person of ordinary skill
 in the art would have been motivated to modify or combine
 teachings in the prior art, and whether he would have had
 a reasonable expectation of success, are questions of fact.”
 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
     As a final matter, we note that because the Board con-
 cluded that Netflix had not established that the prior art
 taught limitation 1[c]—or corresponding claim limitation
 10[d]—it did not address the parties’ arguments related to

     3   Because, as noted previously, limitation 10[d] cor-
 responds to limitation 1[c], see Board Decision, 2021 WL
 3599429, at *10, the Board on remand should likewise de-
 termine whether the combination of Chen and Grab-333
 discloses obtaining frames of video content as required by
 that limitation.
Case: 22-1043   Document: 46     Page: 14    Filed: 04/27/2023

 14                                 NETFLIX, INC.   v. DIVX, LLC

 other claim limitations. See Board Decision, 2021 WL
 3599429, at *10. If, on remand, the Board concludes that
 Netflix has established by a preponderance of the evidence
 that the prior art teaches or suggests limitations 1[c] and
 10[d], it can then proceed to address whether Netflix has
 met its burden with respect to other claim limitations. We
 have considered the parties’ remaining arguments but do
 not find them persuasive.
                        CONCLUSION
     Accordingly, the decision of the United States Patent
 and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board is af-
 firmed in part and vacated in part and the case is re-
 manded for further proceedings consistent with this
 opinion.
      AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND
                    REMANDED
                           COSTS
 The parties shall bear their own costs.