UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case Nos.: IPR2017-00744, -00742
`
`Patent No. 8,621,512
`____________
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS
`
`Comcast, Exhibit-1014
`Comcast v. Rovi
`IPR2017-00742
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case Nos.: IPR2017-00744, -00742
`
`Patent No. 8,621,512
`____________
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS
`
`Comcast, Exhibit-1014
`Comcast v. Rovi
`IPR2017-00742
`
`
`
`The ’512 Patent
`#1: Recording Seinfeld
`#2: Recording Friends
`
`Additional Request: Record Sopranos
`
`Source: Ex. 1001
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 2
`
`
`
`’512 Patent - FIG. 4(c)
`
`Source: Ex. 1001, FIG. 4(c)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 3
`
`
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 19, pp. 2-5; IPR2017-00742, Paper 19, pp. 6-9
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 4
`
`
`
`The ’512 Patent is Not Patentable
`
`• Claim 1
`• Claim Construction:
`BRI (PTAB) v. Phillips (ITC)
`• Unpatentable over:
`– Nagano, Alexander, Chun (00744)
`– Sano, Marsh, LaJoie (00742)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 5
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 1
`[1a] A method for resolving a conflict when multiple operations are
`performed using multiple tuners controlled by an interactive
`television program guide, the method comprising:
`
`[1b] receiving a request to perform a tuning operation;
`
`[1c] determining that neither a first tuner nor a second tuner are
`available to perform the requested tuning operation, wherein the
`first tuner and the second tuner are both capable of performing the
`tuning operation;
`
`[1d] and in response to the determination, displaying an alert that
`provides a user with an opportunity to direct the interactive
`television program guide to cancel a function of the second tuner to
`permit the second tuner to perform the requested tuning operation.
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 6
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 8, p. 5; IPR2017-00742, Paper 8, p. 5
`
`
`
`The Law of Claim Construction
`
`Source: Facebook, Inc. v. Pragmatus AV, LLC, 582 F. App’x 864, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`IPR2017-00744, Paper 19, p. 2; IPR2017-00742, Paper 19, p. 6
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 7
`
`
`
`BRI (PTAB) >= Phillips (ITC)
`Either is Correct
`
`Broadest
`Reasonable
`Interpretation
`>
`
`Phillips
`
`Broadest
`Reasonable
`Interpretation
`=
`ITC’s
`Phillips
`Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 8
`
`
`
`Crux of Dispute
`“Available” Now v. “Available” in Future
`(a/k/a Rovi’s Tuner v. Timer Conflict)
`• Assume current time is 06:59:59
`– Tuner 1 is performing a tuner function at 06:59:59
`– Tuner 2 is performing tuner function at 06:59:59
`
`• Request made at 06:59:59 to record channel at 06:59:59
`– Available Now (Tuner Conflict)
`
`• Request made at 06:59:59 to record channel at 07:00:00
`– Request is to record channel one (1) second in future
`– Available in Future (Timer Conflict)
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 19, pp. 6-7; IPR2017-00742, Paper 19,
`pp. 10-11; Ex. 1011, 116:13-117:7
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 9
`
`
`
`Disputed limitation: “Are Available”
`
`• Has a plain and ordinary meaning
`• Are you “available” for lunch?
`• Could apply to:
`– “current” availability (e.g., lunch today)
`– “future” availability (e.g., lunch on Friday)
`• No requirement of “immediacy”
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 19, pp. 2-5; IPR2017-00742, Paper 19, pp. 6-9
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 10
`
`
`
`Consistent with the Institution Decision
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 8, p. 9; IPR2017-00742, Paper 8, p. 9
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 11
`
`
`
`Ordinary Meaning is
`Consistent with the ’512 Specification
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 19, pp. 3-5, Ex. 1112, ¶10; IPR2017-00744, Paper
`14, p. 5; IPR2017-00742, Paper 19, pp. 7-9, Ex. 1012, ¶10; Ex. 1001, 10:6-16
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 12
`
`
`
`Consistent with Admission
`from Rovi’s Expert
`
`Source: Ex. 1011, 104:9-13
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 13
`
`
`
`Applying Correct Meaning of
`“Available” to Disputed Limitations
`
`• “Determining That Neither First Nor Second
`Tuner Are Available to Perform the Requested
`Tuning Operation”
`
`• “Cancel a Function”
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 14
`
`
`
`Determining That Neither First Nor Second Tuner Are
`Available to Perform the Requested Tuning Operation
`• Comcast BRI:
`–plain and ordinary meaning
`• ITC Construction:
`–plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 19, pp. 2-7; Ex. 2106, pp. 444-445; IPR2017-00744, Paper 14, p. 12;
`IPR2017-00742, Paper 19, pp. 6-9; Ex. 2006, pp. 444-445; IPR2017-00742, Paper 14, p. 12
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 15
`
`
`
`Determining That Neither First Nor Second Tuner Are
`Available to Perform the Requested Tuning Operation
`
`• “As an initial matter, the administrative law judge has
`determined that this phrase does not need construction.
`The words in the claim are used according to their
`common, plain meaning.”
`
`• “In the alternative, the administrative law judge construes
`the phrases “neither a fist tuner nor a second tuner are
`available to perform the requested tuning operation” (claim
`1) and “neither the first tuner nor the second tuner are
`available to perform the requested tuning operation” (claim
`13) to mean “the first and second tuners cannot perform
`the requested turning operation.” Rovi’s construction
`comports with the plain and ordinary meaning of the words
`in the claim.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 19, pp. 2-7; Ex. 2106, pp 444-445; IPR2017-00744,
`Paper 14, p. 12; IPR2017-00742, Paper 19, pp. 6-9; Ex. 2006, pp. 444-445;
`IPR2017-00742, Paper 14, p. 12
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 16
`
`
`
`Determining That Neither First Nor Second Tuner Are
`Available to Perform the Requested Tuning Operation
`
`• Despite having argued for and winning its
`proposed broad construction in the ITC, Rovi
`now tries to survive unpatentability by
`narrowing the scope of this limitation.
`
`• Rovi’s Narrow Limitation:
`– “the step of ‘determining …’ happens at the time
`of the requested tuning operation (i.e., at the time
`when a tuner is needed to perform the operation)”
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 19, p. 3; IPR2017-00744, Paper 14, p. 12; IPR2017-00742, Paper 19,
`p. 7; IPR2017-00742, Paper 14, p. 12
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 17
`
`
`
`“Cancel a Function”
`
`• Comcast BRI:
`– plain and ordinary meaning
`
`• Broad ITC Construction:
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 19, pp. 2, 5; Ex. 2106, p. 435; IPR2017-00742,
`Paper 19, pp. 6, 9; Ex. 2006, p.435
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 18
`
`
`
`“Cancel a Function”
`• Rovi makes same mistake on this disputed
`limitation
`• Rovi tries to survive unpatentability by adding
`an additional narrow limitation to the ITC
`construction
`
`• Rovi’s Narrow Limitation:
`– “the function must already be underway for
`it to be canceled.”
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 19, pp. 2, 5; IPR2017-00744, Paper 14, pp. 18-23;
`IPR2017-00742, Paper 19, pp. 6, 9; IPR2017-00742, Paper 14, pp. 16-21
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 19
`
`
`
`Broadest Reasonable
`Interpretation
`
`=
`
`ITC’s Phillips
`Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 20
`
`
`
`Phillips
`
`Broadest
`Reasonable
`Interpretation
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 21
`
`
`
`• Is the Proposed BRI at least as broad as the
`ITC’s Phillips construction?
`– Comcast: Yes
`– Rovi: No
`• Does the Proposed BRI Cover the Fig. 4(a)
`Example in the ’512 Patent?
`– Comcast: Yes
`– Rovi: No
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 19, pp. 2-5; IPR2017-00742, Paper 19, pp. 6-9
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 22
`
`
`
`Applying the Correct BRI, Who Wins?
`
`Comcast Wins
`
`• Why?
`
`• Rovi does not dispute that the prior art teaches
`future conflicts
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, p. 27; Ex. 1107, ¶78; IPR2017-00742, Paper 2, p.
`37; Ex. 1009, ¶77
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 23
`
`
`
`Applying the Incorrect BRI, Who Wins?
`
`Comcast Still Wins
`
`• Why?
`• The ITC and Patent Examiner both concluded that
`the prior art does not distinguish between:
`– timer conflicts (i.e., alleged future conflicts) and
`– tuner conflicts (i.e., alleged current conflicts)
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 19, pp. 6-7; Ex. 1110, p. 31; IPR2017-00742, Paper
`19, pp. 10, 16-17; Ex. 1013, p. 31
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 24
`
`
`
`Source: Ex. 1110, p. 31
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 25
`
`
`
`Rejection of Rovi’s Argument Makes Sense
`Because Difference between Timer Conflict and
`Tuner Conflict is Trivial (e.g., “ One Second”)
`
`Source: Ex. 1011, 116:25-117:7
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 26
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00744 Instituted Grounds
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 8, p. 25
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 27
`
`
`
`Claim 1 / Nagano
`
` Yes: IPG
` Partial: One Tuner
` Yes: Detecting
`Conflict
` Yes: Displaying
`Alert When
`Conflict Detected
` Yes: Providing
`User Opportunity
`to Cancel
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, p. 9; Ex. 1104, p. 1
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 28
`
`
`
`Claim 1 / Nagano
`[1a] A method for resolving a conflict when multiple operations are
`performed using multiple tuners controlled by an interactive
`television program guide, the method comprising:
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, pp. 23-25; Ex. 1104, 1:33-38, Figs. 1 and 9A
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 29
`
`
`
`Claim 1 / Nagano
`[1a] A method for resolving a conflict when multiple operations are
`performed using multiple tuners controlled by an interactive
`television program guide, the method comprising:
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, pp. 24-25; Ex. 1104, 1:33-38; Fig. 9A
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 30
`
`
`
`Claim 1 / Nagano
`[1b] receiving a request to perform a tuning operation;
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, pp. 25-26; Ex. 1104, 1:33-38, Fig. 9A
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 31
`
`
`
`Claim 1 / Nagano
`[1c] determining that neither a first tuner nor a second tuner are
`available to perform the requested tuning operation, wherein the
`first tuner and the second tuner are both capable of performing the
`tuning operation;
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, pp. 28-29; Ex. 1104, 10:50-62, Fig. 17B.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 32
`
`
`
`Claim 1 / Nagano
`[1d] and in response to the determination, displaying an alert that
`provides a user with an opportunity to direct the interactive
`television program guide to cancel a function of the second tuner to
`permit the second tuner to perform the requested tuning operation.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, pp. 15-16; Ex. 1104, 4:36-38, 11:48-51, Fig. 17E
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 33
`
`
`
`Alexander Discloses:
`IPG
`Tuners
`Detection of Conflict
`Displaying an Alert
`
`Requires User to
`Revise the Record
`Instructions to
`Eliminate the Conflict
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, pp. 18-19; Ex. 1105, p. 1
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 34
`
`
`
`Claim 1 / Alexander
`[1a] A method for resolving a conflict when multiple operations are
`performed using multiple tuners controlled by an interactive
`television program guide, the method comprising:
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, p. 23; Ex. 1105, 14:35-41
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 35
`
`
`
`Claim 1 / Alexander
`[1b] receiving a request to perform a tuning operation;
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, p. 39; IPR2017-00744, Paper 19, p. 11; Ex. 1105, 11:3-7
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 36
`
`
`
`Claim 1 / Alexander
`[1c] determining that neither a first tuner nor a second tuner are
`available to perform the requested tuning operation, wherein the
`first tuner and the second tuner are both capable of performing the
`tuning operation;
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, pp. 9, 27, 30; Ex. 1107, ¶57; Ex. 1105, 12:53-55, 12:57-60
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 37
`
`
`
`Claim 1 / Alexander
`[1d] and in response to the determination, displaying an alert that
`provides a user with an opportunity to direct the interactive
`television program guide to cancel a function of the second tuner to
`permit the second tuner to perform the requested tuning operation.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, p. 30; Ex. 1107, ¶82; Ex. 1105, 12:60-67, 13:1-3
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 38
`
`
`
`Claim 1 / Alexander
`[1d] and in response to the determination, displaying an alert that
`provides a user with an opportunity to direct the interactive
`television program guide to cancel a function of the second tuner to
`permit the second tuner to perform the requested tuning operation.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, p. 30; Ex. 1107, ¶82; Ex. 1105, 13:1-3
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 39
`
`
`
`Chun Discloses:
`
`IPG
`Tuners
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, p. 19; Ex. 1106, p. 1
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 40
`
`
`
`Claim 1 / Chun
`[1a] A method for resolving a conflict when multiple operations are
`performed using multiple tuners controlled by an interactive
`television program guide, the method comprising:
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, p. 19; Ex. 1106, Abstract, 2:37-38, Fig. 6
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 41
`
`
`
`Claim 1 / Chun
`[1a] A method for resolving a conflict when multiple operations are
`performed using multiple tuners controlled by an interactive
`television program guide, the method comprising:
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, p. 50; IPR2017-00744, Paper 14,
`p. 30; Ex. 1106, 1:29-31, 1:54-56
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 42
`
`
`
`All the claimed elements were
`known in the prior art
`One skilled in the art would
`have combined the elements as
`claimed by known methods with
`no change in their respective
`functions, and
`The combination would yield
`nothing more than predictable
`results to one of ordinary skill in
`the art.
`
`Source: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 167 L. Ed. 2d 705 (2007)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 43
`
`
`
`• All claim elements were known in the prior art:
`– Nagano has everything except 2 tuners
`– Alexander and Chun have 2 tuners
`• The known elements would be combined by known
`methods with no change in their respective functions
`– Simply add a “tuner” to Nagano
`– All elements would operate the same way
`• Mere duplication of a part (e.g., a tuner) has no
`patentable significance
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, pp. 9-10, 20-21; Ex. 1107, ¶¶48-59, 161, 167, 195
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 44
`
`
`
`Obviousness is not limited to where a POSITA “can
`only perform combinations of a puzzle element A
`with a perfectly fitting puzzle B element.”
`
`Source: ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
`In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 45
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to modify Nagano by adding
`a second tuner and an IPG that controls the two tuners, as
`taught by Alexander, to provide the user with more
`programming content due to multiple tuners.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, pp. 23-24, 27; Ex. 1107, ¶¶101, 66
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 46
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify
`Nagano’s system that is controlled by an IPG to include a
`second tuner, as taught by Chun, to provide a user with an
`“easy-to-use” IPG system and the capability to display
`multiple images on a single television.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, pp. 31, 50; Ex. 1107, ¶¶83, 148
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 47
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art
`to have modified Nagano to include the two-tuner system and IPG,
`which was known in the art and taught by Alexander, for the
`purpose of providing a user with a simplified capability to correct
`programming conflicts. Such a combination would allow a user to
`cancel a requested tuner function of any unavailable tuner, when
`the user is alerted that there is a programming conflict, as taught by
`Nagano and Alexander, and would have been a predictable use of
`the prior art elements according to their established functions.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, pp. 30-31; Ex. 1107, ¶83
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 48
`
`
`
`Source: Ex. 1111, 79:19-24
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 49
`
`
`
`One skilled in the art would understand that by modifying
`Nagano to include an additional tuner, conflicts could
`arise between the two tuners due to increased
`programming content.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, pp. 23-24, 27; Ex. 1107, ¶¶70, 77
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 50
`
`
`
`Persons of ordinary skill would choose among a limited
`number of known and obvious approaches, such as
`providing users with a programming conflict alert and the
`capability to continue or cancel the requested tuner
`function. Skilled artisans would have had a reasonable
`expectation of success in doing so.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, p. 20; Ex. 1107, ¶¶66, 83
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 51
`
`
`
`[I]t would have been obvious to modify Nagano by
`adding a second tuner, as taught by Alexander, to
`provide a user with increased control over the
`additional programming content available to a user
`with multiple tuners.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, pp. 23-24, 27; Ex. 1107, ¶¶70, 77
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 52
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to modify Nagano by adding
`a second tuner and an IPG that controls the two tuners, as
`taught by Alexander, to provide the user with more
`programming content due to multiple tuners. As a result
`of the increased programming content, the conflict
`resolution system controlled by the IPG, as taught by
`Nagano, would simplify a user’s control over the
`additional content.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, pp. 23-24, 27; Ex. 1107, ¶¶101, 66
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 53
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use
`Nagano’s conflict resolution system in a multi-tuner
`system as described by Alexander in order to provide a
`user with the capability to efficiently resolve
`programming conflicts across multiple tuners as a result
`of increased programming content.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, p. 20; Ex. 1107, ¶¶66, 83
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 54
`
`
`
`One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to
`modify the conflict resolution system and method
`described by Nagano with the multi-tuner system and
`secondary tuner function taught by Chun to resolve
`programming conflicts that arise with multiple tuners.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, p. 21; Ex. 1107, ¶161
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 55
`
`
`
`Such a combination would not require any changes in
`Nagano’s and Chun’s respective functions, and the
`combination would yield nothing more than predictable
`results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, such a
`combination would yield the anticipated result of
`improving a user’s capability to record multiple programs
`efficiently while enhancing the user’s viewing capability
`and experience.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, p. 21; Ex. 1107 ¶¶167, 195
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 56
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify
`Nagano by adding a second tuner, as taught by Chun, to
`provide a user with increased access and control over
`additional programming content and to display multiple
`images on a single screen.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, p. 52; Ex. 1107, ¶153
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 57
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify
`Nagano by adding a second tuner, as taught by Chun, to
`provide a user with the ability to recognize and resolve
`programming conflicts (i.e., the claimed “determining”),
`such as capable tuners being unavailable to perform a
`tuning function, as taught by Nagano, resulting from
`increased programming content.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, p. 54; Ex. 1107, ¶161
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 58
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in
`the art to have modified Nagano to include the two-tuner
`system, which was known in the art and taught by Chun, for
`the purpose of improving user access and control of desired
`programming content over multiple tuners. Such a
`combination would allow a user to cancel a requested tuner
`function of any unavailable tuner, when the user is alerted that
`there is a programming conflict, as taught by Nagano, and
`would have been a predictable use of the prior art elements.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, pp. 57; Ex. 1107, ¶167
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 59
`
`
`
`Source: Ex. 1111, 109:4-13
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 60
`
`
`
`Source: Ex. 1111, 18:2-5
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 61
`
`
`
`Source: Ex. 1110, p. 33; Ex. 1013, p.33
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 62
`
`
`
`Source: IPR2017-00742, Paper 8, p. 28
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 63
`
`
`
`Sano discloses:
`IPG
`3 Tuners
`Detection of Conflict
`Displaying an Alert
`in the Event of a
`Conflict
`
`Source: IPR2017-00742, Paper 2, p. 9; Ex. 1006, p. 1
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 64
`
`
`
`Claim 1 / Sano
`[1a] A method for resolving a conflict when multiple operations are
`performed using multiple tuners controlled by an interactive
`television program guide, the method comprising:
`• “The three tuner portions 22
`a, 22 b and 22 c receive
`broadcasts of different
`frequencies and apply them
`to the recording channel
`selecting portions 41 a, 41 b
`and 41 c”
`• “This enables simultaneous
`recording of three or fewer
`channels selected arbitrarily
`from multi-channel
`multiplex broadcasts”
`
`Source: IPR2017-00742, Paper 2, pp. 24, 36, 50; Ex. 1009, ¶77; Ex. 1006, 10:36-41, 11:21-22, Fig. 5
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 65
`
`
`
`Claim 1 / Sano
`[1a] A method for resolving a conflict when multiple operations are
`performed using multiple tuners controlled by an interactive
`television program guide, the method comprising:
`
`Source: IPR2017-00742, Paper 2, p. 23; Ex. 1009, ¶¶17, 49; Ex. 1006, 11:27-34
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 66
`
`
`
`Claim 1 / Sano
`[1b] receiving a request to perform a tuning operation;
`
`Source: IPR2017-00742, Paper 2, p. 23; Ex. 1006, 12:21-27
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 67
`
`
`
`Claim 1 / Sano
`[1c] determining that neither a first tuner nor a second tuner are
`available to perform the requested tuning operation, wherein the
`first tuner and the second tuner are both capable of performing the
`tuning operation;
`
`With the “recording and playing apparatus of Fig. 5, the
`number of channels that can be … recorded is three. Given
`this, if the number of channels is set more than three in the
`same time band … it is impossible to record all of the
`channels…”
`
`• Sano is determining that the “requested tuning operation” (i.e.,
`recording a channel) cannot be performed
`
`Source: IPR2017-00742, Paper 2, p. 24; Ex. 1009, ¶76; Ex. 1006, 12:32-37
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 68
`
`
`
`Claim 1 / Sano
`[1d] and in response to the determination, displaying an alert that
`provides a user with an opportunity to direct the interactive
`television program guide to cancel a function of the second tuner to
`permit the second tuner to perform the requested tuning operation.
`
`“Such a misoperation can be prevented by providing … a
`warning display, when the number of channels set exceeds the
`maximum number of channels that can be recorded
`simultaneously…”
`
`Source: IPR2017-00742, Paper 2, p. 37; Ex. 1006, 12:35-37
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 69
`
`
`
`Rovi’s Argument About “Always
`Available” Is Misplaced
`
`• According to Rovi:
`– “In Figure 5 (on which Petitioner relies), each
`tuner receives and outputs more channels than the
`number of channels that are simultaneously
`recorded.”
`– “Thus, the tuners are always available, even when
`the recorder is recording channels simultaneously.”
`
`Source: IPR2017-00742, Paper 14, p. 23
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 70
`
`
`
`Rovi’s Argument About “Always
`Available” Is Misplaced
`
`Source:IPR2017-00742, Paper 2, pp. 24, 36, 50; Ex. 1009, ¶77; Ex. 1006, 10:36-41, 11:21-25, 12:33-
`35, Fig. 5
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 71
`
`
`
`Marsh discloses:
`IPG
`One Tuner
`Detection of Conflict
`Displaying an Alert
`in the Event of a
`Conflict
`Provides User with
`Opportunity to
`Cancel Tuner
`Function
`
`Source: IPR2017-00742, Paper 2, pp. 9, 24-26; Ex. 1007, p. 1
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 72
`
`
`
`Claim 1 / Marsh
`[1d] and in response to the determination, displaying an alert that
`provides a user with an opportunity to direct the interactive
`television program guide to cancel a function of the second tuner to
`permit the second tuner to perform the requested tuning operation.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00742, Paper 2, pp. 39-40; Ex. 1009, ¶¶52, 87; Ex. 1007, 12:4-19
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 73
`
`
`
`Rovi Admits that
`Marsh Determines Conflicts
`
`Source: IPR2017-00742, Paper 8, p. 17
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 74
`
`
`
`Rovi’s Expert Agrees that Marsh Provides User
`Opportunity to Cancel Conflicting Request
`
`Source: Ex. 1011, 126:7-11
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 75
`
`
`
`All the claimed elements were
`known in the prior art
`One skilled in the art would
`have combined the elements as
`claimed by known methods with
`no change in their respective
`functions, and
`The combination would yield
`nothing more than predictable
`results to one of ordinary skill in
`the art.
`
`Source: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 167 L. Ed. 2d 705 (2007)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 76
`
`
`
`• All claim elements were known in the prior art:
`– Sano has IPG, tuners, conflict detection, conflict
`warning display
`– Marsh has IPG, tuner, conflict detection, conflict
`warning display, and conflict resolution
`• The known elements would be combined by known
`methods with no change in their respective functions
`– Simply use Marsh conflict resolution in Sano
`– All elements would operate the same way
`
`Source: IPR2017-00742, Paper 2, pp. 9, 30; Ex. 1009, ¶82
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 77
`
`
`
`Further, performing the functions recited by claims 1 and
`13 (determining a conflict, providing an alert, and
`canceling a function) for a “second tuner” would be
`obvious in light of Marsh’s teaching for a first tuner that a
`user can cancel a conflicting recording request. The
`application of these known techniques to a “second tuner”
`would yield predictable results.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00742, Paper 2, pp. 38-39; Ex. 1009, ¶82
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 78
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to combine Sano’s multiple
`tuner system with Marsh’s recording cancellation feature
`to improve a user’s control over programming content. A
`PHOSITA would have found claims 1 and 13 a
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their
`established functions.
`
`Source: Ex. 1009, ¶82
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 79
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to combine Sano’s IPG and
`multiple tuner system with Marsh’s IPG recording
`cancellation feature for the purpose of improving user
`access and control of desired programming content.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00742, Paper 2, p. 38; Ex. 1009, ¶82
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 80
`
`
`
`Source: Ex. 1011, 109:4-13
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 81
`
`
`
`Source: Ex. 1011, 18:2-5
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 82
`
`
`
`Source: Ex. 1013, p.33
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 83
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 84
`
`
`
`Additional Slides if Desired by Board
`
`Dependent Method Claims 2 and 6-10
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 85
`
`
`
`• Nagano / Alexander
`
`• Nagano / Chun
`
`• Sano / Marsh
`
`Claim 2
`• 2. The method of claim 1
`further comprising:
`• receiving a user selection
`to not cancel the function
`of the second tuner; and
`• in response to the user
`selection to not cancel the
`function of the second
`tuner, continuing to
`perform the function of
`the second tuner.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00742, Paper 2, pp. 39-41; IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, pp. 31-33, 58-59; Ex. 1101,
`Claim 2
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 86
`
`
`
`Claim 2 / Nagano (with Alexander or Chun)
`
`2. The method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving a user
`selection to not cancel the function of the second tuner; and
`in response to the user selection to not cancel the function of the
`second tuner, continuing to perform the function of the second
`tuner.
`
`Nagano
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, pp. 15-16; Ex. 1104, 4:36-42, Fig. 17E
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 87
`
`
`
`Claim 2 / Sano (with Marsh)
`
`2. The method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving a user
`selection to not cancel the function of the second tuner; and
`in response to the user selection to not cancel the function of the
`second tuner, continuing to perform the function of the second
`tuner.
`
`Marsh
`
`Source: IPR2017-00742, Paper 2, pp. 9, 29-26; Ex. 1007, 12:24-27
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 88
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
`have modified Nagano to include the two-tuner system, which was
`known in the art and taught by Alexander, to present the user with a
`simplified means to “not cancel” a current function of a tuner, as
`taught by Nagano, across multiple tuners, as taught by Alexander.
`Such a predictable use of the prior art would have prompted a
`skilled artisan to combine the references for the purpose of
`providing users improved access and control of their desired
`programming content.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, p. 33; Ex. 1107, ¶89
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 89
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
`have modified Nagano to include the two-tuner system which was
`known in the art and taught by Chun to present the user with an
`option not to cancel a current tuner function of any tuner, as taught
`by Nagano, across multiple tuners, as taught by Chun. Such a
`predictable use of the prior art would have prompted a skilled
`artisan to combine the references for the purpose of providing users
`improved access and control of their desired programming content.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, p. 59; Ex. 1107, ¶173
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 90
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
`combine the multi-tuner recording capability taught by Sano with
`the conflict resolution system that allows a user to cancel the
`requested tuning operation with an IPG, as taught by Marsh,
`thereby continuing the function of the second tuner. Such a
`predictable use of the prior art would have prompted a skilled
`artisan to combine the references for the purpose of providing users
`improved access and control of their desired programming content.
`
`Source: IPR2017-00742, Paper 2, p. 41; Ex. 1009, ¶¶86-89
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 91
`
`
`
`•
`
`Claim 6
`• The method of
`claim 1 wherein
`• a function of the
`first tuner is
`viewing a first
`television program,
`the function of the
`second tuner is
`performing a
`secondary tuner
`function, and
`the requested
`tuning operation is
`recording a second
`television program.
`
`•
`
`Source: Ex. 1101, Claims 6-8
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Claim 7
`• The method of
`claim 1 wherein
`• a function of the
`first tuner is
`viewing a first
`television program,
`•
`the function of the
`second tuner is
`recording a second
`television program,
`and
`•
`the requested
`tuning operation is
`performing a
`secondary tuner
`function.
`
`Claim 8
`• The method of
`claim 1 wherein
`• a function of the
`first tuner is
`viewing a first
`television program,
`the function of the
`second tuner is
`recording a second
`television program,
`and
`the requested
`tuning operation is
`viewing a third
`television program.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 92
`
`
`
`Watching 1st Channel and Recording 2nd
`
`Nagano
`
`Sano
`
`Alexander
`
`Source: IPR2017-00742, Paper 2, pp. 51-52; Ex. 1006, 10:36-41, 12:32-34; IPR2017-
`00744, Paper 2, pp. 39-40, 65-66; Ex. 1104, 1:36-38, 1:15-17; Ex. 1105, 11:3-4
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 93
`
`
`
`Expert Admission:
`Nagano Teaches Watching and
`Recording a Channel at the Same Time
`
`Source: Ex. 1111, 131:4-10
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 94
`
`
`
`Expert Admission:
`Alexander Teaches Watching and
`Recording a Channel at the Same Time
`
`Source: Ex. 1111; 132:8-133:2
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 95
`
`
`
`Expert Admission:
`Alexander Teaches Watching and
`Recording a Channel at the Same Time
`
`Source: Ex. 1111, 133:19-23
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 96
`
`
`
`Claim 6 – Secondary Tuner Functions
`
`LaJoie – Music Function
`
`Alexander - PIP
`
`Chun - PIP
`
`Source: IPR2017-00744, Paper 2, pp. 18-19; IPR2017-00742, Paper 2, p. 27
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits - 97
`
`
`
`Secondary Tuner Function
`LaJoie
`
`Alexander:
`
`Chun:
`
`Source: IPR2017-00742, Paper 2, pp
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
