UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742 and IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: May 9, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and TERRENCE W.
`MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742 and IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: May 9, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and TERRENCE W.
`MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742; IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`FREDERIC M. MEEKER
`
`
`TIMOTHY C. MEECE
`
`
`Banner & Witcoff LTD
`
`
`10 South Wacker Drive Suite 3000
`
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60606-7047
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SCOTT A. MCKEOWN, ESQUIRE
`GABRIELLE HIGGINS, ESQUIRE
`HENRY HUANG, ESQUIRE
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006-6807
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, May 9,
`
`2018, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742; IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`JUDGE BISK: Good afternoon. Judge McMillin, can you hear me?
`JUDGE MCMILLIN: I can. Good afternoon.
`
`JUDGE BISK: Okay, thank you. We are convened for oral argument
`
`in IPR 2017-00742 and IPR 2017-0744. Both of which challenge U.S.
`Patent 8,621,512.
`I am Judge Bisk here with Judge Benoit in Alexandria and Judge
`McMillin as you can see is appearing by video. Let’s start with appearances.
`Petitioner?
`
`MR. MEEKER: Your Honor, Fred Meeker with the law firm of
`Banner and Witcoff representing Comcast Cable Communications, LLC.
`With me is Tim Meece who will be making the oral argument today. Chris
`Galafano who will be on the audio visual equipment and Scott Kelly as well.
`Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE BISK: Okay. Patent owner.
`
`MS. HIGGINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Gabrielle Higgins
`from the law firm of Ropes & Gray. With me is lead counsel Mark Roland,
`Scott McKeown, Henry Huang as well as Bruce Yen from Rovi Guides.
`
`JUDGE BISK: Okay, thank you. Each side will have up to 90
`minutes to argue. Petitioner has the ultimate burden of establishing
`unpatentability and will proceed first to present his case and may reserve
`rebuttal time. Petitioner, you may begin when ready.
`
`MR. MEECE: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE BISK: And can you start with telling me how much rebuttal
`time you want if any.
`
`MR. MEECE: Yes, we would like to reserve 30 minutes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742; IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`
`JUDGE BISK: 30 minutes, okay. So I'm setting the timer for 50
`
`minutes just so you know when that time is up. I'm new at this timer so
`hopefully it works.
`
`MR. MEECE: No problem. It is right in front of me, I shouldn’t miss
`it.
`JUDGE BISK: Okay.
`
`MR. MEECE: Thank you. Well, good afternoon. May it please the
`
`Board. I would like to start today first with the broadest reasonable
`interpretation because I believe it is a case dispositive issue for both
`petitions in this case. As you know, Rovi won a broad construction under
`Phillips in the ITC for infringement purposes. However, despite a
`presumption of validity, the ITC --
`
`JUDGE BISK: I'm sorry, I was just going to ask if you could update
`us on the status of that ITC case.
`
`MR. MEECE: Actually I don’t have an update for you. Maybe my --
`
`MR. MEEKER: Your Honor, Fred Meeker. The status is the case is
`on appeal currently and, I think on an expedited briefing schedule and that’s
`really all I have on that.
`
`JUDGE BISK: All right, thank you.
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: And how about the Southern District of New York
`case?
`MR. MEEKER: That case has been stayed pending the outcome of
`
`the IPR proceedings. So there is actually a large number of patents at issue
`between the two parties but part of that has actually been opened up again. I
`think on the 034 patent which was not instituted and that’s currently
`undergoing summary judgment briefing. I think the defendant’s summary
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742; IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`
`judgment brief was filed recently and I think Rovi is getting ready to
`respond to that but that’s the only patent that has been brought back
`primarily because the PTAB denied institution on that patent.
`
`JUDGE BISK: Thank you.
`
`MR. MEECE: So starting here with the broadest reasonable
`interpretation, despite presumption of validity, and the ITC found the claims
`to be invalid based on clear and convincing evidence. Go to slide four.
`And as you will see, Rovi's arguments in this case are really a house
`of cards premised on a narrow claim construction, more narrow that Phillips
`that is incorrect as a matter of law. Based on the correct broadest reasonable
`interpretation, all of Rovi's arguments fail.
`Slide seven please. According to the Federal Circuit, we know from
`the Facebook decision that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim
`may be the same as or broader than the construction of the term under the
`Phillips standard but it absolutely cannot be more narrow.
`Slide A. And I think the easiest way to illustrate this is just with a
`Venn diagram. On the left we have the broadest reasonable interpretation
`being greater than the scope of Phillips. On the right we have the BRI the
`same as the ITC Phillips construction. And under Facebook, either of these
`is correct.
`If we can go to slide 20. And here we will demonstrate that Comcast's
`claimed construction complies with the Federal Circuit law because our BRI
`is the same as the ITC's construction under Phillips.
`In contrast, if you can go to slide 21, we see that Rovi’s construction
`actually has the scopes reversed. This is the opposite of what the Federal
`Circuit requires under Facebook that both the BRI has to be at least as broad
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742; IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`
`as Philips. Here Rovi has the BRI of being more narrow. So with that as a
`background, let's start off with the patent itself, the 512 patent.
`Slide two. So the 512 patent is directed to an obvious method or
`resolving conflict and we have two tuners and a set top box and they're both
`busy. And then somebody makes a third request. So as an example say
`somebody is watching or recording Seinfeld on tuner one and you are
`recording Friends on tuner two. Then an additional request is made to
`record the Sopranos. This is obviously going to create a conflict. Both
`tuners are already busy and now we have a third request.
`Go to slide 3. So what happens in the 512 patent is that after a
`conflict is detected, the user is alerted to a conflict like shown in Figure 4C
`and it is in essence asked whether you want to record the Sopranos and
`cancel the recording of Friends or vice versa. It’s an obvious solution to a
`very simple problem.
`Slide 6 please. So with respect to independent claim 1 which frankly I
`think is kind of representative. It’s the only independent method claim.
`There are two independent claims in the patent, one, the other one is
`independent claim 13. 13 is the system claim, they are virtually identical to
`one another.
`Claims 2 through 12 are method claims that depend on Claim 1.
`Those claims mirror dependent claims 14 through 24 which are dependent
`system claims. Claim 1 recites basically a method for resolving a conflict
`where we have an IPG, in other words an interactive television program
`guide, an IPG, that is controlling multiple tuners.
`The IPG receives a request for the tuning operation. It then
`determines that neither a first tuner nor second tuner are available to perform
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742; IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`
`the requested tuning operation. In response to that it displays an alert that
`provides the user with an opportunity to cancel a function of the second
`tuner.
`I will note here that in the Patent Owner Response, Rovi only
`provides arguments for dependent method claims 6 sorry 2, 6 through 10 and
`corresponding system claims 14 and 18 through 22. The other claims are
`not disputed by Rovi.
`
`JUDGE BISK: But you still have the burden to prove unpatentability.
`
`MR. MEECE: Yes, we do. We have the, yes. I believe we covered
`everything in our opening Petition. If Rovi brings up anything here during
`the trial we are happy, be happy to respond to it.
`
`JUDGE BISK: Thank you.
`
`MR. MEECE: But right now we tried to focus our slides and our
`arguments on the arguments that Rovi has actually made.
`So can we have slide 9 please? So the crux of the dispute between the
`parties really boils down to this concept of availability. Is the claim limited
`to where the tuner functioning has to be available right now or does it also
`cover where the tuner function is available in the future?
`And I thought about this and I think that to put it in context, the
`easiest way to understand it is with an example. Assume the current time 6
`o’clock, 59 minutes and 59 seconds. At that exact time, we have tuner one
`recording a show. We have tuner two recording a show. At that exact
`instant the user then makes a request to perform another recording. So we
`have three activities occurring exactly at six o’clock, 59 minutes and 59
`seconds. That is going to be the conflict right now in the availability right
`now and that’s what Rovi is calling a tuner conflict.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742; IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`
`
`In contrast, let's just stick with the same hypothetical. Both tuners are
`busy at six o’clock 59 minutes, 59 seconds and at that exact time, a user
`makes a request for to record another show, one second in the future, just
`one second. So he says at seven o'clock I want to record The Sopranos.
`Accordion to Rovi, that’s a conflict that occurs in the future and therefore
`that’s what they call a timer conflict.
`Can we have slide 10 please? So what does it mean for something to
`be available? Comcast believes that available has its, has a plain and
`ordinary meaning. For example if I ask you are you available for lunch that
`might mean are you available right now, it might mean are you unavailable
`today. I could also say are you available on Friday for lunch? So within the
`ordinary meaning of the term available, it could apply to current availability
`as well as future availability. There is simply no requirement of immediacy
`whatsoever in the claim --
`
`JUDGE BISK: What evidence do you have that one of ordinary skill
`would view available in that way?
`
`MR. MEECE: I think we have it in a couple of ways. If you could
`bear with me just for a second I think have a couple slides that will deal with
`it. One is I think is that the institution decision was good. They viewed it as
`not requiring any type of immediacy. We have an admission from Rovi’s
`own technical expert and we also have excerpts from the patent specification
`itself which talked about current and future programming requests and
`conflicts. So with that in mind if I could have slide 11 please?
`
`JUDGE BISK: Well, let me just comment on your comment about
`the institution decision.
`
`MR. MEECE: Sure.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742; IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`
`JUDGE BISK: I noticed that you have that on slide 11 but you didn’t
`
`seem to recognize or acknowledge that on page 27 of our decision it says our
`discussion of facts or of claim construction in this decision is only for the
`purpose of determining whether or not inter partes review should be
`instituted and it’s not dispositive of any issue. At this preliminary stage the
`Board has not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of
`the challenged claims or any underlying factual or legal issues.
`
`MR. MEECE: Yes, so I understand that. But I haven’t taken it as
`gospel. I just pointed it out as another data point. So we believe that, you
`know, just on its face, available has a plain and ordinary meaning.
`Consistent with that, we think that the initial Boards institution decision
`correctly recognized this.
`The next slide. Sorry, its slide 12. It’s also consistent I think with
`what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood based on
`reviewing the 512 patent specification. In particular in which Figure 4A is
`described as the preferred embodiment. And it is the only IPG selection
`screen disclosed in the patent. And this selection screen provides the user
`with an opportunity to view program listings for current and future programs
`and provides the ability to record those programs. This concept of being to
`record a program is a requested tuning function.
`So when we are talking about available, it’s not available in the
`abstract, it is available on the context of the claim. In the context of the
`claim we are talking about are available to perform the requested tuning
`operation. And that would need to cover both current and future programs.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742; IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`
`
`And then slide 13 here is the admission I got from Rovi’s expert.
`Even he admitted that the 512 patent contemplates that you can have
`conflicts in future scheduled recordings.
`Question. And the patent contemplates that you may have conflicts in
`future scheduled recordings. Answer. I think there is a description of that,
`yes.
`JUDGE BISK: Did he mention where it is or where you think that is?
`
`MR. MEECE: This was actually in the context of discussing figure,
`
`can we go back to slide 12? It was in the context of discussing Figure 4A
`and this is an excerpt in the specification from Figure 4A as well as Figure
`4A itself.
`And in Figure 4A, can you pull up Figure 4A? In figure 4A in the
`patent, there was a description of the guide and you can see and it was a
`normal IPG guide where you had a series of shows with columns indicating
`each time slot. And he’s almost there. I'll have to get you a new mouse.
`There we go, there's Figure 4A.
`So Figure 4A here in this discussion of this IPG program selection
`screen which is the only one disclosed in the patent, even here, we have the
`applicant referring to trying to record a conflict or record a show at 7:30
`basically. There's a typographical error if you might have recalled from our
`reply brief. The columns are supposed to be 7 o’clock, 7:30, 8 o’clock and 8
`o’clock. We got that confirmed by Rovi’s expert, it's just a typographical
`error.
`Anyway, at 7 o’clock the expert is trying or the applicant is trying to
`record a program, program 10. That program 10 is occurring in the future.
`If for example we have, you know, program 2 and program 6 also scheduled
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742; IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`
`at 7:30 being busy, this is a conflict where it is not going to be available
`because the other two tuners are available -- are already busy at that time.
`So we think that this is consistent with this understanding of
`availability is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning. It's consistent
`with the 512 patent specification that talks about current and future programs
`as well as the ability to initiate the recording processes out of that guide
`screen. And it is also consistent with the expert's admission as well.
`Can we go back to slide 13? No, it's slide 14. All right. So available
`has a plain and ordinary meaning again consistent with the Board’s
`institution decision, consistent with the patent specification, consistent with
`Rovi’s own expert admission and none of this is there any requirement
`whatsoever for immediacy. With that as a background, the two limitations
`in dispute here --
`
`JUDGE BISK: Can I ask you a question --
`
`MR. MEECE: Sure.
`
`JUDGE BISK: -- about the fact that the claim uses, inferred is instead
`of will be. I think that was one of the arguments that patent owner made to
`show that this is immediate availability not future availability. Can you
`discuss that?
`
`MR. MEECE: Sure. Okay. So I think that what we are talking about
`is available; are available. Again it's -- we can’t look at that in isolation
`which is what I think they do. We are not looking at the term available in
`isolation, we have to look at it in context of the claim. In context of the
`claim we have are available to perform the requested tuning operation that’s
`recording. So you can't just take the one word and pop it out and look at
`availability in that context. You have to look at it in the context of the claim
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742; IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`
`limitation itself and that is then consistent with everything else. It is
`consistent with the teachings of the prior art, it is consistent with the
`teachings of the patent.
`So the two limitations for determining that neither a first nor a second
`tuner are available to perform the requested tuning operation and the other
`was cancelled function. Go to slide --
`
`JUDGE BISK: Can I ask another question about that context of the
`determining step.
`
`MR. MEECE: Okay.
`
`JUDGE BISK: In thinking about this I'm wondering if the dispute
`could be framed as the -- when the determining step is performed. Is it
`performed well, when you receive a request to perform the tuning operation
`and at that time you determine it or is it performed at the time that you are
`going to actually perform the requested tuning operation?
`
`MR. MEECE: I think that actually goes to Rovi’s proposed narrow
`construction. This doesn’t appear in the ITC construction so I know that
`more narrow ITC construction under Phillips, the court held that there was
`no reason to construe the term because it was used in accordance with his
`plain and ordinary meaning but it was going to be construed, the limitation
`would be the first and second tuners cannot perform the requested tuning
`operation. That doesn’t say --
`
`JUDGE BISK: But that does not say when it is performed.
`
`MR. MEECE: Correct. Correct. So it could be performed at any
`time, it is open ended. How -- and that's actually the construction that Rovi
`argued for and presented in the ITC despite arguing for that and winning that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742; IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`
`for infringement purposes, now Rovi is trying to add this additional
`limitation of --
`
`JUDGE BISK: But what if the ITC construction is construed to mean
`right now as well?
`
`MR. MEECE: I don’t think so. I think that there is no limitation --
`
`JUDGE BISK: Did the court apply that at all?
`
`MR. MEECE: I'm sorry?
`
`JUDGE BISK: Does ITC apply that anywhere?
`
`MR. MEECE: I don’t believe so.
`
`JUDGE BISK: Okay.
`
`MR. MEECE: I don’t believe so. If we turn to slide 16, here is what
`the ITC had to say about it. It said the phrase didn’t need any construction
`but words in the claim should be given their plain and ordinary meaning or
`in the alternative, it adopted Rovi's construction there where Rovi didn’t
`argue that it had any type of immediacy requirement. It said alternatively
`we are adopting Rovi’s construction which comports with the plain and
`ordinary meaning of the words of the claim and that means that the first and
`second tuners cannot perform the requested tuning operation.
`
`JUDGE BISK: Right. But to me it seems that that construction has
`the same issue as the issue here is not solved by that. But I --
`
`MR. MEECE: So let’s go to slide 17 please. If that was the case, that
`it was already there, Rovi wouldn’t be trying to argue it and insert it into the
`claim construction now. It wouldn’t need to. But that’s what it's trying to
`do so it is trying to do --
`
`JUDGE BISK: I don’t understand that.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742; IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`
`MR. MEECE: Okay. So if the -- go back. Go back to slide 16. So if
`
`Rovi got what it wanted and this construction inherently required
`immediacy, you have to do it right now, you are only looking at right now.
`It would not have had to then expand on the construction and --
`
`JUDGE BISK: Well, maybe they assumed that’s what it meant and if
`it ever got applied. I'm not seeing how this is a problem. If it’s never
`applied then we don’t really know what it means and in this case, you were
`applying it, you were applying the construction and they said they wait.
`
`MR. MEECE: Well, I mean, it was applied in the context of maybe
`I'm getting a little -- maybe I'm getting a little further ahead of myself here.
`
`JUDGE BISK: Okay.
`
`MR. MEECE: So they, it was applied in the context of they
`considered Rovi’s argument about a timer versus a tuner where the timer is
`something in the future so not immediate and the tuner is something that
`immediate. And the ITC expressly rejected that.
`
`JUDGE BISK: Okay.
`
`MR. MEECE: And the Examiner expressly rejected that. So let’s
`move on if you don't mind. Slide 17. Okay. This is, to us this is the added
`limitation that they are trying to read into the determining step. At the time
`of the requested tuning operation i.e., the time when the tuner is needed to
`perform the operation, this is when it happens. That’s when you have to
`perform the determining.
`Slide 18 please. For the other limitation cancel a function, Comcast
`again believes that the phrase should be given its plain and ordinary
`meaning. Its consistent with the ITC's construction where the ALJ held that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742; IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`
`cancel a function means to stop a function using a signal tuned to by the
`second tuner.
`Slide 18. Sorry, slide 19. So we think that, you know, again with
`respect to the second limitation, Rovi is again trying to survive on
`patentability by adding a narrow limitation into the construction. In
`particular now it is trying to read in that the function must already be
`underway.
`Slide 22. So to us then how do we know which broadest reasonable
`interpretation is correct? We think you can figure this out by just asking
`yourselves two simple questions. One whose proposed broadest reasonable
`interpretation is at least as broad as Phillips? Ours is. We believe they are
`trying to read additional limitations into theirs therefore it is not.
`Second, whose proposed the broadest reasonable interpretation is
`broad enough to cover the preferred embodiment example of Figure 4A in
`the 512 patent. Again we think that ours is because we cover current and
`future programs whereas there’s is not.
`So slide 23, if we apply what we believe is the correct broadest
`reasonable interpretation who should win? We think we should win because
`Rovi doesn’t dispute the fact that the prior art teaches timer conflicts. And if
`the only difference between a timer conflict and a tuner conflict is something
`that is trivial or non-existent then obviously the prior art teaches every
`element of the claims.
`Next slide is 24. Conversely if we assume for argument purposes that
`Rovi’s construction is correct, who would win, we think that Comcast still
`wins. And the reason for that is because both the ITC and the patent
`examiner concluded the prior art does not distinguish between timer
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742; IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`
`conflicts and tuner conflicts so there is no distinction between a future
`conflict and a current conflict. And again remember Rovi’s own expert
`admitted that the difference between the two could be as trivial as one
`second.
`Slide 25. When analyzing this issue, the ITC explained that
`underlying Rovi's arguments is its positions that the prior art makes the
`distinction between tuner conflicts and timer conflicts that neither Nagano
`nor Sano teach tuner conflicts and then for some reason modifying a
`reference from the timer conflict to a tuner conflict would be an obstacle.
`And the Commission expressly rejected those positions.
`The Commission also commented on the prosecution where the
`Examiner rejected the argument during prosecution as well as when he
`concluded the prior art doesn’t distinguish between tuner and timer conflicts.
`Slide 26. And again I think that this makes sense because the
`difference between the two is very trivial. In particular when I deposed Dr.
`Balakrishnan, I asked him if a conflict occurs 55 seconds in the future so
`that’s 55 seconds. Is that a timer problem or a tuner conflict? He said it’s a
`timer conflict. So I said okay. What if it occurs one second in the future?
`Just one second. He says that’s a timer conflict.
`So he is conflating this down to a very short period of time and again
`we have to remember that electronics aren’t even instantaneous. I mean, it
`may take a second to do a tuning function. So there really is no difference at
`all between a timer conflict and a tuner conflict. Its trivial if not nominal.
`That brings us to the first combination here, slide 27.
`JUDGE BISK: Before you get into the art.
`MR. MEECE: Sure.
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742; IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`
`JUDGE BISK: Do I understand it that you are indicating that the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation is the same as the Phillips construction
`found in the ITC?
`
`MR. MEECE: Yes.
`
`JUDGE BISK: For both? Okay.
`
`MR. MEECE: Yes. Yes. So for the, let’s start off with the 744
`petition. Mr. McMillin, did you say something.
`
`JUDGE MCMILLIN: I have a question.
`
`MR. MEECE: Sure.
`
`JUDGE MCMILLIN: Could you go back to your slide 18?
`
`MR. MEECE: Sure.
`
`JUDGE MCMILLIN: If cancelling the function means stopping the
`function, doesn’t something have to be ongoing to be stopped?
`
`MR. MEECE: Well, so let me start off with first this construction is
`what the ITC adopted under the narrow Phillips standard. I think that within
`the scope of the claim if we are talking about something or if it is available
`to perform a requested tuning operation that is covering present and future
`so we could have for example a recording scheduled for the future. You can
`cancel that recording. It doesn’t mean that the recording and the tuning have
`to be done right away.
`So if we again to go back to the example of 7 o’clock, at 7 o’clock I
`have tuner one recording a show, tuner 2 recording a show. Certainly the
`claims going to cover a situation where we try to perform a third tuning
`request at that exact time. Definitely it is going to happen, that’s going to
`happen there.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742; IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`
`
`But the claim also covers if you have a recording at 7 o’clock and
`you're recording a show at 7:30, recording another show at 7:30 and then
`somebody tries to record yet a third show at 7:30, that’s certainly within the
`plain and ordinary meaning of a cancelling function. The function is
`recording, I'm going to cancel the recording to get -- if I want friends I'm
`going to cancel The Sopranos. If I want Sopranos, I'm going to cancel
`Friends and that’s certainly within the scope of the plain and ordinary
`meaning of cancel a function in the context of the claim. If I could go on --
`
`JUDGE MCMILLIN: I'm sorry, Mr. Meece, is that one way of saying
`the construction at the bottom half of 18 is wrong?
`
`MR. MEECE: I don’t think so. So the -- if we can take a close look
`at it. The cancel the function part of the construction was to stop a function
`utilizing a signal tuned to by the second tuner. The rest of that limitation to
`permit the second tuner to perform the requested tuning operation
`corresponds to the rest of the verbiage. So I don’t think so. I think that the -
`- as construed by the ITC that that is consistent with the broadest reasonable
`interpretation. You can cancel something right now and it's certainly
`reasonable to say that you are going to cancel a future scheduled recording.
`
`JUDGE MCMILLIN: Thank you.
`
`MR. MEECE: Sure.
`
`JUDGE BISK: You said again consistent but you mean the same,
`right?
`
`MR. MEECE: Same.
`JUDGE BISK: Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742; IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`
`
`Mr. MEECE: So if we could go to slide 27 please. All right. So I
`would like to deal with the 744 petition first. In this petition, all the claims
`we believe all the claims are invalid or unpatentable over Nagano --
`
`JUDGE BISK: Uh-oh.
`
`
`MR. MEECE: -- and Alexander as well as Nagano and Chun.
`Nagano discloses --
`
`JUDGE BISK: If you would hold on, we have just lost, did we lose
`Judge McMillin?
`
`JUDGE MCMILLIN: There it is.
`
`JUDGE BISK: Oh, were you lost?
`
`JUDGE MCMILLIN: There's a function; and I'm sorry for
`interrupting. There’s a function on my camera that is supposed to let me
`freeze it so that I can get a drink of water. I was using that function and
`apparently if I use it too long I disappear. I apologize.
`
`MR. MEECE: No problem. We won't --
`
`JUDGE MCMILLIN: I'll drink (inaudible).
`
`MR. MEECE: All right, for the 744 we are relying on Nagano and
`Alexander and Nagano and Chun. We believe that Nagano discloses
`everything in the claim except for it only shows a single tuner. Alexander
`and Chun both disclose two tuners.
`Can we have slide 28 please. With respect -- particularly with respect
`to Nagano, it discloses an IPG, one tuner, it detects conflicts, displays an
`alert when a conflict is detected and then it actually gives the user the
`opportunity to cancel a program, one of the, to cancel one of the tuning
`functions.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00742; IPR2017-00744
`Patent 8,621,512 B2
`
`
`In slide 29 we can see this with respect of Figure 1. Nagano discloses
`a tuner.
`Slide 30. Nagano has an IPG that is displayed on a television screen.
`Slide 31. As illustrated in Figure 9 the user can use an IPG to select a
`program to record.
`32, if a user selects a program from a recording that overlaps with a
`currently scheduled recording, Nagano displays a question mark in front of
`the title of the program like shown in green here on Figure 17B. That
`indicates to the user that a conflict exists.
`Slide 33, after a conflict is detected the overlapping recording
`instructions are displayed like shown in Figure 17E. So and then the user
`resolves the conflict by pressing a key on the remote control to cancel
`whichever recording he wants to cancel. And that’s Nagano.
`Slide 34, Alexander has disclosed an IPG, two tuners, detection of a
`conflict, displaying an alert in the event of a conflict, a secondary tuner
`function like a picture in picture window. And then for conflict resolution,
`Alexander requires the user to r
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
