`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Patent No. 8,621,512
`Filing Date: October 24, 2011
`Issue Date: December 31, 2013
`
`Title: INTERACTIVE TELEVISION PROGRAM GUIDE WITH
`SIMULTANEOUS WATCH AND RECORD CAPABILITIES
`________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF VERNON THOMAS RHYNE, PH.D., P.E., R.P.A.
`
`1
`
`Comcast, Exhibit-1107
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Vernon Thomas Rhyne, declare that I have personal knowledge of the
`
`facts set forth in this declaration and, if called to testify as a witness, could and
`
`would do so competently.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained by Petitioner Comcast Cable Communications,
`
`LLC, (“Petitioner”) to assess U.S. Patent No. 8,621,512 (“Ellis” hereafter) titled
`
`“Interactive Television Program Guide with Simultaneous Watch and Record
`
`Capabilities.”
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`I reside in Austin, Texas.
`
`I have also been asked to provide my opinions regarding non-
`
`interactive Electronic Program Guide Systems (“EPGs”) and Interactive Program
`
`Guide Systems (“IPGs”) and the resolution of programming content conflicts as
`
`related to Ellis, including providing an overview of the prosecution history of Ellis,
`
`the disclosure of Ellis, the broadest reasonable interpretation of terms in the claims
`
`of Ellis, and what constitutes a person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to
`
`Ellis. Specifically,
`
`this Declaration provides my opinions regarding
`
`the
`
`obviousness of Ellis over various combinations of the prior art. I am being
`
`compensated for my time at a rate of $695 USD per hour, plus actual expenses. My
`
`compensation is not dependent in any way upon the outcome of Petitioner’s IPR
`
`petition.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
` Education and Certifications
`I received an undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering from
`
`4.
`
`Mississippi State University in 1962. I received a Master’s degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering from the University of Virginia in 1964. I received a Doctorate in
`
`Electrical Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1967.
`
`5.
`
`I am a registered professional engineer (“PE”) in Texas, No. 28,728,
`
`and a registered patent agent, No. 45,041.
`
` Career Synopsis
`I am a retired Professor of Electrical/Computer Engineering at Texas
`
`6.
`
`A&M University and a part-time engineering consultant. From 1967 to 1983 I was
`
`a Professor of Electrical Engineering at Texas A&M University. From 1983
`
`to 1995 I was employed at the Microelectronics and Computer Technology
`
`Corporation (MCC) in Austin TX. There, I was responsible for MCC’s R&D
`
`programs in neural network applications, data mining, software interface
`
`standardization, and other advanced software development projects. From 1995
`
`to 1997, I was employed at Motorola, Inc. in Austin, TX. I was the Manager of
`
`Strategic Programs, Strategic Asset Group, Semiconductor Products Sector.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
` Career Milestones
`The following is a list of some of my awards and honors: IEEE
`
`7.
`
`Fellow (1990) for my “contributions to computer engineering and the computer
`
`engineering profession;” IEEE Millennium Award (2000); Golden Core Award,
`
`IEEE Computer Society (1996); and Fellow of the Accreditation Board for
`
`Engineering and Technology (1992). I am also a member of the following
`
`honorary societies: Upsilon Pi Epsilon (Computer Science), Eta Kappa Nu
`
`(Electrical Engineering), Tau Beta Pi (Engineering), Phi Kappa Phi (Scholarship),
`
`and Sigma Xi (Research). I have been a member of the Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Engineers since 1963, rising to the level of Life Member as of 2003.
`
` Detailed Research Activity
`During my engineering career, I participated in a number of research
`
`8.
`
`programs which were directly related to the subject matter of the patent at issue in
`
`this IPR.
`
`9.
`
`I have extensive experience with computer technology, including
`
`design and teaching experience with a variety of computer systems, microcomputer
`
`systems, and microcontrollers. I have participated in the design of several
`
`computer systems and microprocessors, and I have designed systems which made
`
`use of those devices as controllers. I am familiar with a variety of computer
`
`architectures, and I am an experienced programmer in a variety of programming
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`languages as well as assembly-level language on a number of different computers
`
`and microprocessors.
`
`10.
`
`I have conducted research on topics such as CAD systems, neural
`
`network applications, data mining, software interface standardization, and other
`
`advanced software development projects. I have written papers and given lectures
`
`related to topics such as electronic design, digital systems design, communications
`
`concepts, graphic symbols for logic devices, etc., and have supervised Masters-
`
`level and Ph.D.-level engineering students, as well as postdoctoral associates. I
`
`have served as a consultant to several companies and law firms regarding
`
`intellectual property litigation from 1978 to the present. I have served as a Member
`
`of the Panel on Assessment, Electrical and Electronics Engineering Laboratory,
`
`U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology, and as the Chair for nine
`
`U.S. engineering program accreditation teams, including accreditation teams for
`
`the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois.
`
`11. My detailed employment background, professional experience, and
`
`list of technical papers and books are contained in my CV, attached as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`12. Prior to reviewing Ellis, I was well familiar with the type of subject
`
`matter described and claimed in it. Ellis relates to an interactive television program
`
`guide which allows a user to view program listings, to navigate through the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`program listings, and to select a program to view or record from that listing. Ex.
`
`1101, Abstract. In that regard, I have over ten years of experience with television
`
`transmission systems, including the early use of the blanking interval for
`
`transmitting data such as program descriptions, closed captions, parental-control
`
`information as part of the broadcast television signal, IPGs and EPGs. I also have
`
`had hands-on experience with a variety of set-top boxes including Scientific-
`
`Atlanta’s Explorer® 2000 and 3000 and the 8600X set-top boxes (including
`
`visiting the Scientific-Atlanta R&D facilities to meet with their engineers), the
`
`Pioneer BD-V3000 set-top box, and the Cisco 8742HDC. I have also studied other
`
`manufacturers’ set-top boxes and satellite receivers in the course of my consulting
`
`practice. I have owned or rented several other set-top boxes in my home, and have
`
`owned a Tivo digital video recorder since its introduction in 1999. I am also
`
`familiar with the AT&T U-verse system for delivery of television programming
`
`and electronic program guide.
`
`13.
`
`I retired from full-time work as of 1997. In addition to the work
`
`described above and in my CV (see Appendix A), I have worked part-time as a
`
`consulting engineer for the past forty years doing computer systems design,
`
`application-specific system design, and expert witness work in intellectual property
`
`litigation.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`14.
`
`I believe that my extensive academic and industrial experience well
`
`qualify me as an expert in the fields of communications, control, and advanced
`
`software applications of relevance to this Declaration, and particularly in IPGs and
`
`the manner in which conflicts between viewing and recording programs can be
`
`resolved in a set-top box. I am knowledgeable of the relevant skill set that would
`
`have been possessed by a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention of Ellis in 1999.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`15. The analysis that I provide in this Declaration is based on my
`
`education and experience in the fields of electrical and computer engineering, as
`
`well as the documents I have considered, including Ellis (Ex. 1101), which claims
`
`priority to Provisional Application No. 60/089,487 (“the ’487 Provisional” and
`
`“Ex. 1102” herein) which was filed on June 16, 1998. I have also reviewed the file
`
`wrapper for Ellis (Ex. 1103).
`
`16.
`
`I have also reviewed various relevant publications from the time of
`
`the alleged invention of Ellis. These publications are listed below:
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`1101 U.S. Patent No. 8,621,512 (“Ellis”)
`1102 U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/089,487 (“the ’487 Provisional”)
`1103 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,621,512
`1104 U.S. Patent No. 6,240,240 (“Nagano”)
`1105 U.S. Patent No. 6,177,931 (“Alexander”)
`1106 U.S. Patent No. 5,506,628 (“Chun”)
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`1107 Not used
`1108 Modern Cable Television Technology (i.e., pp. 4, 9, 10, 747, 757-767,
`778-779)
`1109 U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/055,761 (“the ‘761 Provisional”)
`
`Description
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`17. The following subsections provide my understanding of the legal
`
`principles that I have relied upon in forming my opinions as set forth herein.
`
`
`Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`It is my understanding that an assessment of the claims of Ellis must
`
`18.
`
`be undertaken from the perspective of what would have been known or understood
`
`by a person having ordinary skill in the art, upon reading Ellis on its relevant filing
`
`date and in light of the specification and file history of that Patent. I refer to such a
`
`person as a “PHOSITA” herein.
`
`19. For the relevant priority date for Ellis, I have used June 11, 1999,
`
`based on the filing date of the earliest non-provisional application that Ellis claims
`
`priority to, Patent Application No, 09/329,850 (“the ’850 Application”), now
`
`abandoned. Ex. 1101, 1:8-18.
`
`20.
`
`In determining the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art, I have
`
`considered the following factors: (a) the types of problems encountered by those
`
`working in the field and prior art solutions thereto; (b) the sophistication of the
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`technology in question, and the rapidity with which innovations occur in the
`
`field; and (c) the educational level of active workers in the field as of 1999.
`
`21.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to the state of the art in
`
`the field of IPGs, television video signal processing and recording, graphical user
`
`interfaces, and related computer software around 1999, including the knowledge to
`
`be expected of a PHOSITA, the manner in which a PHOSITA would have
`
`understood the claims of Ellis, the manner in which a PHOSITA would have
`
`understood the prior art, or what a PHOSITA would have been led to do based on
`
`the prior art. Similarly, when discussing the disclosures of the prior art and/or the
`
`claims of Ellis, I address those topics as they would have been viewed by a
`
`PHOSITA in the 1999 timeframe.
`
`22. Based on my consideration of the factors listed in ¶¶ 20-21 above, in
`
`my opinion a person of ordinary skill in the art related to Ellis in the 1999
`
`timeframe would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar discipline, and two to
`
`three years’ experience or familiarity with EPGs, television video signal
`
`processing, graphical user interfaces, and associated computer software, or would
`
`have had equivalent experience either in industry or research, such as designing,
`
`developing, evaluating, testing, or implementing the aforementioned technologies.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`23.
`
`I also understand that U.S. law provides categories of information that
`
`constitute prior art that may be used to anticipate or render obvious patent claims.
`
`To be prior art to a particular patent claim under the relevant law, I understand that
`
`in general a reference must have been made, known, used, published, or patented,
`
`or be the subject of a patent application by another, before the priority date of the
`
`patent, and in this matter, must satisfy one of the standards of pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102. I also understand that a PHOSITA is presumed to have full
`
`knowledge of the relevant prior art.
`
` Obviousness
`I also understand that a proper analysis of whether an invention is
`
`24.
`
`invalidated for obviousness includes a review of the scope and content of the prior
`
`art, the differences between the patent claims and the prior art, and the level of skill
`
`in the pertinent art at the time of the invention.
`
`25.
`
`I also understand that in determining obviousness I should take into
`
`account the knowledge, experience, and creativity of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention, and whether such a skilled artisan
`
`would have found the challenged claims to be a “predictable use of prior-art
`
`elements according to their established functions,” as described by the U.S.
`
`Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), and
`
`therefore obvious in view of the prior art.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26.
`
`I also understand that a claim may be invalidated for obviousness if
`
`there is a teaching or suggestion to combine prior art references in a manner that
`
`yields the claimed invention. I understand that a showing of obviousness requires
`
`some articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the combination
`
`of the references. I understand that in consideration of this issue it is important to
`
`identify whether a reason existed at the time of the invention that would have led a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to combine elements of the references
`
`in a way that yields the claimed invention.
`
`27.
`
`I also understand that various objective or “real world” factors may be
`
`indicative of non-obviousness. I understand that such factors include:
`
`(A) The commercial success of the claimed invention;
`
`(B) The existence of a long-felt, unresolved need for a solution to the
`
`problem solved by the claimed invention;
`
`(C) Failed attempts to solve the problem solved by the claimed invention;
`
`(D) Copying of the claimed invention;
`
`(E) Unexpected results of the claimed invention;
`
`(F) Praise for the claimed invention by others in the relevant field; and
`
`(G) Willingness of others to accept a license under the patent because of the
`
`merits of the claimed invention.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
` Use of the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`I also understand that, in an inter partes review proceeding, the patent
`
`28.
`
`claims at issue are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification of the patent, unless otherwise noted. I also understand that claim
`
`terms which are not expressly defined in the patent are to be given their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`view of the patent specification, other intrinsic evidence, and extrinsic evidence.
`
`As explained below, I have used those understandings in forming the opinions set
`
`forth in this Declaration.
`
`V. THE STATE OF THE ART RELATIVE TO ELLIS
` The Prior Art of Program Guides
`29. Ellis discloses and claims a conflict resolution system providing an
`
`IPG which a user can use to select a television program to watch while also
`
`selecting another program that can be recorded at the same time. Ex. 1101,
`
`Abstract; claim 13. The Ellis Abstract also explains that such a system can be
`
`implemented by a set-top box with a single tuner or with a set-top box having
`
`multiple tuners. The Ellis system allegedly determines that if a conflict exists for a
`
`recording, viewing, or other function, the system alerts the user and provides the
`
`user with the opportunity to cancel the conflict with the IPG. Ex. 1101, claim 1.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`30. Of note here, however, is the fact that of the 1999 filing date of Ellis,
`
`there were a number of IPG-based systems which supported the simultaneous
`
`watching and recording of television programs, with a number of companies and
`
`individuals developing and publicizing approaches to creating such systems as a
`
`way for a television viewer to identify programs of interest for either (or both)
`
`viewing and recording. A significant contributor to these developments was the
`
`transition by many television viewers from broadcast television received with the
`
`then-familiar TV antennas, to the delivery of television programming and other
`
`services through coaxial cables, which were brought to the users’ homes. Whereas
`
`over-the-air delivery of television programming was limited to a small number of
`
`channels in most markets, the transition to cable delivery provided an opportunity
`
`to deliver many more channels of general and special-interest programming.
`
`31. As of the early-to-middle 1990s, cable television systems and their
`
`larger number of available channels were proliferating across the U.S. For
`
`example, a seminal book in the field—Modern Cable Television Technology by
`
`Walt Ciciora, James Farmer, and David Large1—on page 4 (Ex. 1108 at 3) notes
`
`that around that time cable television service was supplied to nearly 65 million
`
`
`1 Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1999. (Ex. 1108).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. households, corresponding to a market penetration of nearly 67%. As a result,
`
`cable television service was available to 96.7 % of U.S. television households.
`
`32. To inform users about the various television programs that were
`
`available from their cable service, early cable systems provided a dedicated
`
`channel showing a scrolling display of the names of those programs, a brief
`
`description of the program and what time the programs were going to be aired. The
`
`data slowly displayed on a rolling basis, and the user could not increase the speed
`
`of the display. Those displays were the original EPGs; they were not interactive.
`
`An example of such a non-interactive EPG is shown below2:
`
`
`2 Excerpt from Wikipedia, Electronic program guide,
`
`
`
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_program_guide (as of Dec. 15, 2016).
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`33. A more modern form of the EPG is the interactive [electronic]
`
`program guide (the “IPG,” though often loosely referred to as an EPG). An IPG
`
`allows television viewers to navigate scheduling menus interactively, selecting and
`
`discovering programming by time, title, channel or genre by using an input device
`
`such as a television remote control. The interactive menus are generated entirely
`
`within local receiving or display equipment using raw scheduling data sent by
`
`individual broadcast stations or centralized scheduling information providers.
`
`Today, a typical IPG provides user selectable information covering a span of one
`
`or two weeks.
`
`34. On pages 9 and 10 (Ex. 1108 at 4-5), Modern Cable Television
`
`Technology also explains that with cable television, one of the major parts of that
`
`system is “the terminal equipment (set top terminals and consumer electronics
`
`hardware).” Given those terminals (also called “set-top boxes” or “STBs”),
`
`Modern Cable Television Technology goes on to explain that most set-top boxes
`
`available in the mid to late 1990s provided an on-screen display which allowed the
`
`user to select channels to watch and/or record through the use of an EPG. Ex. 1108
`
`at 7.
`
`35. That book also noted that EPGs were being built into television
`
`systems and STBs, and that some of the STBs also provided IR LEDs which could
`
`be used to control a separate video recorded. Ex. 1108 at 7.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`36. Further, Chapter 19 of Modern Cable Television Technology describes
`
`a number of different ways of connecting the coaxial cable supplying television
`
`programming to a home with TVs, VCRs, and STBs based on a 1987 report from
`
`the National Cable & Television Association’s3 Engineering Committee. One
`
`approach described in § 19.3.1 of Modern Cable Television Technology allows the
`
`user to “watch one unscrambled channel while recording a different unscrambled
`
`channel.” Ex. 1108 at 10. An alternate approach described in § 19.3.3 of Modern
`
`Cable Television Technology uses two STBs, each with its own tuner, to supply
`
`programming to a VCR and a television set which allows a user to “watch any
`
`authorized scrambled or unscrambled program” and to “record any (other or the
`
`same) authorized scrambled or unscrambled program.” Ex. 1108 at 12.
`
`37. The original function of STBs, also referred to as “converter boxes” in
`
`the early 1990s,4 was simply to select one of the many incoming channels so that it
`
`could be watched on a TV set. The incoming channel was tuned to and then
`
`converted to a specific channel (often channel 3 or 4) for output to the associated
`
`television set or recorder, those end devices being tuned to receive programming
`
`
`3 Currently known as the Internet & Television Association.
`
`4 See the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,
`
`Public Law 102-383-OCT. 5, 1992.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on that fixed channel. This basic capability was soon enhanced, however, to allow
`
`the STB to be controlled using a hand-held infrared controller. Later, more
`
`sophisticated set-top boxes were introduced by companies like Scientific-Atlanta
`
`and Cisco. Those STBs contained enough memory and graphics resources to allow
`
`them to accept downloaded features providing enhanced capabilities including an
`
`on-screen display, volume control, virtual text channels, a sleep timer, parental
`
`locks, reminder messages, and multi-lingual displays.5
`
`38. As STB capabilities expanded, EPGs such as those described in
`
`Modern Cable Television Technology became a common feature of those in-home
`
`devices. As an example, as early as 1997, Alexander (Ex. 1105, discussed in detail
`
`below) describes a multi-tuner system that uses an IPG that provides a listing of
`
`available programs and allows a user to select a program for viewing or recording
`
`from the IPG. Ex. 1105, 6:1-55. I note that although Alexander specifically
`
`describes its program guide as an “EPG,” in my opinion a PHOSITA would have
`
`understood that the “EPG” of Alexander is, in fact, an IPG since it provides an on-
`
`screen display that presents PIP and other information to the user and is also
`
`interactively responsive to user inputs. Ex. 1105, 6:1-55; 14:34-41. I thus refer to
`
`
`5 See http://blogs.cisco.com/sp/a_brief_history_of_set-top_box_innovation (last
`
`accessed on October 26, 2016).
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the EPG of Alexander as an IPG throughout this Declaration. Ex. 1105, 14:34-41.
`
`Similarly, Chun (Ex. 1106, also discussed below) describes a menu-driven
`
`program selection system for use in a two-tuner television receiver. Ex. 1106,
`
`Abstract.
`
`39. By 1998, therefore, in my opinion a PHOSITA would have known
`
`many of the features of the purported invention claimed by Ellis to be well known.
`
` Overview Of Ellis
`40. As I noted above, Ellis relates to a conflict resolution system using an
`
`interactive program guide that allow a user to view program listings, to navigate
`
`through the program listings, to select a program to view or record, and to resolve
`
`any conflicts which may arise when they make a selection. Ex. 1101, Abstract;
`
`claim 13. Ellis also discloses that the IPG can be implemented on a receiver with
`
`multiple tuners or on a VCR and television by using an RF bypass switch.
`
`Ex. 1101, 1:42-47; 1:57-2:9; Fig. 12. Ellis also explains that when providing “a
`
`full-featured interactive program guide, it is typically necessary to use several
`
`different screens, each screen being associated with one or more features of the
`
`system.” Ex. 1101, 3:19-22; 5:49-51; FIGS. 3-10 (depicting “sample screen
`
`displays which illustrate the operation of the interactive program guide of the
`
`present invention”).
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`41. Ellis also discloses that IPGs are typically implemented on STBs
`
`(Ex. 1101, 1:26-27), and that having a set-top box which provides an IPG allows
`
`users to view a listing of viewable television programs, to select a program for
`
`viewing, and in some cases, to select a program to be recorded. Ex. 1101, 1:27-30.
`
`Given those capabilities, Ellis identifies as a “significant disadvantage” the alleged
`
`fact that the available IPGs are provided by STBs that contain only one tuner,
`
`though admitting that STBs containing two tuners had been proposed. Ex. 1101,
`
`1:35-38. Given a one-tuner STB, therefore, Ellis opines that if the user has
`
`assigned that tuner to a program being recorded, the user will be unable to watch a
`
`second program while that recording is taking place. Ex. 1101, 1:38-41.
`
`Accordingly, Ellis proposes to provide a “more sophisticated program guide” that
`
`operates with a multi-tuner STB. Ex. 1101, 1:42-43.
`
`42. To implement such a conflict-free IPG system, Ellis discloses an STB
`
`having more than one tuner and states that the “arrangement of FIG. 2(b) allows
`
`the interactive television program guide to allocate whichever tuner is not currently
`
`busy for recording a selected program when that program is about to begin.”
`
`Ex. 1101, 7:55-58; Fig. 2(b).
`
`43. Having such a system, Ellis also discloses that even when a program
`
`is being recorded by using one tuner within a two-tuner STB, a user can still use
`
`the IPG to select a different program for viewing. In so doing, the IPG system uses
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`the second tuner to provide that second program to a television set for viewing.
`
`Ex. 1101, 8:19-23. Ellis also discloses a system that includes multiple tuners that
`
`are capable of allowing a user to view or record a program, and various “secondary
`
`tuner functions” such as allowing the user to utilize a picture-in-picture (“PIP”)
`
`function. Ex. 1101, 1:55-2:5. Further, with regard to possible conflicts, Ellis
`
`discloses with respect to the highlighted flowchart of Figure 3(b) (below) that a
`
`user can choose to cancel a tuner function currently in progress to switch the tuner
`
`to a different requested function, or, alternatively, the user may cancel the
`
`requested function, thereby continuing the current tuner function. Ex. 1101, Fig.
`
`3(b). I also note that in the alternate embodiment shown in Fig. 12 of Ex. 1101, the
`
`end user may perform these functions by using a set-top box connected to a VCR,
`
`a television, and an RF bypass switch. As I explain below, however, the use of IPG
`
`systems which could resolve such tuner conflicts was well known in the prior art as
`
`of 1999.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The Priority Date and the Prosecution History
`I have reviewed the prosecution file history of Ellis. U.S. Application
`
`44.
`
`No. 13/280,215 was filed on October 24, 2011 (Ex. 1103). That application was
`
`the fifth of a series of applications claiming priority to the ’487 Provisional
`
`(Ex. 1102). However, based on my study of it, it is my opinion that Ellis is not
`
`entitled to the filing date of the ’487 Provisional. I base that opinion on my
`
`understanding that in order to properly support a later-filed application, a
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`provisional application must contain a written description of the claimed invention
`
`such that a PHOSITA would believe that, as of the priority date sought, the
`
`applicant was in possession of the invention that is later claimed, and that such a
`
`written description must actually or inherently disclose each and every element of
`
`the later-allowed claims. Clearly, that requirement is also not satisfied by the ’487
`
`Provisional.
`
`45. To the contrary, the ’487 Provisional consisted of only a two-page
`
`write-up that lacked any drawings or flowcharts. Further, the ’487 Provisional did
`
`not provide any implementation details, did not provide a complete written
`
`description of the various features set forth in the later-filed application for Ellis,
`
`and did not provide an enabling disclosure that would allow a PHOSITA to
`
`practice any of the alleged inventions set forth in those later claims. Ex. 1102 at 5
`
`and 6. More specifically, the brief discussion found in the two-page ’487
`
`Provisional fails to disclose those skilled in the art how to make and use the full
`
`scope of the later-allowed Ellis claims without undue experimentation, and lacking
`
`that disclosure, those claims fail to bear a reasonable correlation to the limited
`
`disclosure found in that Provisional.
`
`46. Due to the shortcomings discussed above, it is my opinion that Ellis is
`
`not entitled to the priority date of the ’487 Provisional, but rather only the June 11,
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`1999 date of the later-filed ’850 Application, now abandoned. Ellis is a
`
`continuation of the ’850 Application. Ex. 1101, 1:8-18.
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE PRIOR ART
` The Combinations of Prior Art
`I address herein the unpatentability of claims 1-24 of Ellis on the
`
`47.
`
`grounds set forth in the table below.
`
`Ground Claims of Ellis
`
`1-24
`
`1-24
`
`Basis for Unpatentability
`Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over
`Nagano in view of Alexander
`Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over
`Nagano in view of Chun
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
` Nagano
`48. Nagano is directed toward an apparatus and a method of “controlling
`
`the recording of television programs” and “[i]f any of the reserved programs
`
`overlap, the apparatus allows the starting time and/or ending time of any of the
`
`overlapped programs to be changed.” Ex. 1104, Abstract. Nagano discloses an IPG
`
`system that includes channel and program data with program categories and an on-
`
`screen display of an IPG that allows the users to select a program for viewing or
`
`recording. Ex. 1104 at 1:25-38 and Fig. 9A. I note that while Nagano specifically
`
`describes its program guide as an “EPG,” in my opinion a PHOSITA would have
`
`understood that the “EPG” of Nagano is, in fact, an IPG since it provides an on-
`
`screen display that presents programming information to the user and is also
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`interactively responsive to user inputs. Ex. 1104 at 1:25-38 and Fig. 9A. I thus
`
`refer to the EPG of Nagano as an IPG throughout this Declaration. For reference,
`
`Nagano’s Fig. 9A is copied below, showing an IPG that includes channel
`
`identifiers, programs, and program times:
`
`
`
`49. Nagano also discloses that the apparatus includes a single tuner and a
`
`remote control and that a “user selects a preferred program on the channel and
`
`watches the program on a TV set or records the program on a picture recorder.”
`
`Ex. 1104, Fig. 1; 1:15-17.
`
`50. Nagano discloses that the system can collect IPG data. Ex. 1104, 6:34-
`
`37. At Ex. 1104, 8:23-33, Nagano also discloses that the IPG shows programming
`
`for all available channels by allowing scrolling of the EPG when the number of
`
`channels exceeds the display capacity of that guide. Nagano also discloses that the
`
`user can move a cursor across the IPG to select a program for recording, with the
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`image of that program being changed to show where the cursor is positioned. Ex.
`
`1104, 8:27-30.
`
`51. Further, Nagano discloses that the apparatus can perform conflict
`
`resolution, stating that “[i]f any of the reserved programs overlap, the apparatus
`
`allows the starting time and/or ending time of any of the overlapped programs to
`
`be changed.” Ex. 1104, Abstract. In other words, Nagano discloses that if a user
`
`reserves a program for recording with the IPG and that program overlaps with
`
`another scheduled recording, the Nagano system determines that the programming
`
`overlaps and there is a conflict. Ex. 1104, 2:10-17.
`
`52. Ex. As shown below in Figs. 17B and 17E (copied below), Nagano
`
`also discloses that the “electronic appliance is provided with a display means for
`
`displaying the picture recording reservation information of the overlapped program
`
`reserved for picture recording.” Ex. 1104 at 4:36-38. The “?” displayed in Fig. 17B
`
`indicates to the user that the movie they have selected for recording overlaps with
`
`the recording of the previously scheduled news program as shown in Fig. 17E.
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`53. A PHOSITA would thus realize that Nagano discloses a method of
`
`correcting tuner conflicts between user selections. For example, at Ex. 1104, 5:6-
`
`13 Nagano discloses that when programs which have been selected for recording
`
`by using his IPG happen to overlap in time, the
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
