Paper 42
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: August 27, 2018
`
`
`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 IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
`STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: August 27, 2018
`
`
`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 IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
`STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`In this inter partes review, instituted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314,
`Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Petitioner”) challenges the
`patentability of claims 1–24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,713,595 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the
`’595 patent”), owned by Rovi Guides, Inc. (“Patent Owner”). We have
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written Decision is entered
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons
`discussed below, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence
`that claims 1–24 of the ’595 patent are unpatentable.
`
`A. Procedural History
`Petitioner filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 1–24 of the
`’595 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On August 28, 2017, we instituted an inter partes
`review of claims 1–24 of the ’595 patent on the following grounds: (i)
`claims 1–24 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)1 as obvious over
`Young ’121,2 Granger,3 and Browne4; and (ii) claims 1–24 of the ’595 patent
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Browne, Young
`’268,5 and Granger. Paper 11 (“Inst. Dec.”), 34–35.
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’595 patent has an
`effective filing date before the effective date of the applicable AIA
`amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`2 U.S. Patent No. 4,706,121, issued Nov. 10, 1987 (Ex. 1108).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,483,277, filed Dec. 15, 1992, issued Jan. 9, 1996 (Ex.
`1118).
`4 PCT Publication No. WO 92/22983, published Dec. 23, 1992 (Ex. 1110)
`5 U.S. Patent No. 5,479,268, issued Dec. 26, 1995 (Ex. 1111, “Young
`’268”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 22, “PO Resp.”), to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper
`29, “Reply”). Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Vernon Thomas
`Rhyne, III (Ex. 1113) and the Declaration of Vernon Thomas Rhyne, Ph.D.
`In Support of Petitioner’s Reply (Ex. 1120). Patent Owner relies on the
`Declaration of Michael Shamos, Ph.D. (Ex. 2109).
`Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 33, “Mot.”).
`Petitioner filed an Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion Exclude Evidence
`(Paper 34, “Opp.”), to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 36, “Mot.
`Reply”).
`An oral hearing was held on June 6, 2018, and a transcript of the
`hearing has been entered into the record. Paper 41 (“Tr.”).
`
`B. Related Matters
`The parties identify the following pending matters, which may affect,
`or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding: (1) Rovi Guides, Inc. v.
`Comcast Corporation, 1:16-cv-09278 (S.D.N.Y.); and (2) Comcast
`Corporation v. Rovi Corporation, 1:16-cv-03852 (S.D.N.Y.). Pet. 1–2;
`Paper 3, 2; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2). Claims 1–24 of the ’595 patent also
`are at issue in IPR2017-00866, for which a final written decision is being
`issued concurrently with this Decision.
`
`C. The ’595 Patent
`The ’595 patent is titled “Interactive Program Guide Systems and
`Processes.” Ex. 1101, [54]. The ’595 patent is directed to an interactive
`program guide system that can automatically tune a television or program a
`video cassette recorder (VCR) based on program selections made from
`program schedule information displayed on a video monitor. Id. at 1:18–23.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`The ’595 patent describes as background that “[o]ver the past several years,
`television viewers have grown accustomed to a scrolling television program
`guide”—such as the Prevue Channel—which, according to the ’595 patent,
`“is not an interactive program guide, and therefore, it lacks certain
`capabilities that viewers would find very useful.” Id. at 1:62–2:1, 2:16–19.
`For example, the ’595 patent states that, with such a guide, “the viewer
`cannot directly use the scrolling grid for tuning a television to a desired
`channel or programming a VCR.” Id. at 2:26–28. The ’595 patent notes that
`“[a]ttempts have been made to provide interactive program guides with such
`capabilities” and that one such system is described in Young ’121—one of
`the prior art references relied on in this proceeding. Id. at 2:29–32. The
`’595 patent states that a disadvantage of the system described in Young ’121
`is that, when user program selection criteria are activated such that only
`programs meeting the criteria are displayed in the grid, “the viewer is unable
`to select for viewing or recording any program that does not meet the
`selection criteria because such programs would not be listed.” Id. at 2:32–
`41. The ’595 patent adds that, with the Young ’121 system, to select an
`unlisted program (because it does not meet a viewer’s criteria), the viewer
`must either “deactivate the selection criteria” or provide different selection
`criteria to capture the program of interest. Id. at 2:42–45.
`The ’595 patent discloses that, “[i]n accordance with [the] invention,
`interactive program guide systems and related processes are provided which
`can automatically tune a television, or program a VCR, based on program
`selections made from program schedule information displayed on a
`television or other suitable television monitor.” Id. at 4:10–14. The patent
`states that “[t]he interactive program guide is implemented preferably using
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`a microprocessor-controlled set-top box that is coupled to the viewer’s
`television set.” Id. at 4:14–17.
`Figure 2 of the patent, below, illustrates the set-top box.
`
`
`Figure 2 above illustrates “a set-top box 70 suitable for implementing
`the interactive program guide of the present invention.” Id. at 7:15–17.
`According to the ’595 patent, television signals and program schedule
`information transmitted on cable network 68 are received by tuning circuitry
`72 of set-top box 70. Id. at 7:17–20. The ’595 patent discloses that tuning
`circuitry 72 processes the incoming signals in a conventional manner to
`extract the program schedule information (id. at 7:20–23) and “also tunes the
`set-top box 70 to a program channel selected by the viewer” (id. at 7:37–40).
`The ’595 patent discloses that when a user invokes the interactive program
`guide, interactive program guide video signals are provided to genlock
`circuitry 82, “which synchronizes those signals to the television signals
`received from the tuning circuitry.” Id. at 7:52–61.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`The ’595 patent states that “[t]he interactive program guide can be
`used by the viewer to select programs of interest for display on the display
`84” (id. at 8:4–5) and “may also be used to program a [VCR] 88” (id. at 8:5–
`7). The patent discloses that “[t]he control unit 74 preferably exerts control
`over the VCR 88 through the use of an infrared transmitter 90[,] which
`communicates with an infrared receiver (not shown) of the VCR 88.” Id. at
`8:7–10.
`The ’595 patent also discloses the following regarding connections to
`the display and VCR:
`In FIG. 2, the display 84 and the VCR 88 are shown connected
`to the genlock circuitry 82. Other arrangements are possible. For
`example, the VCR can be connected to the genlock circuitry 82
`and the display 84 can be connected to the VCR. However, if
`the viewer wishes to record and view different programs at the
`same time, the VCR 88 can be connected directly to the cable
`network 68. The invention also contemplates the use of a set-top
`box (not shown) that includes two tuners—one each for the VCR
`88 and the display 84.
`Id. at 8:14–23 (emphasis added).
`According to the ’595 patent, in a Program Guide display mode,
`program schedule information is presented in a grid format, and the viewer
`can use navigation keys on a remote control to move a cursor to a desired
`program. Id. at 4:34–37. The patent explains that “[o]nce a program of
`interest has been located and highlighted by the cursor, the viewer can use
`the remote control to cause the set-top box to tune to the selected
`program . . . or to schedule the program for later viewing or recording (if not
`yet being telecast).” Id. at 4:37–41.
`Figure 4 of the ’595 patent, below, illustrates a program guide screen.
`Id. at 10:7–9.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 4, above, illustrates a program guide screen that presents a
`premium channel line-up. Id. at 10:7–9. Program cell 127 is highlighted to
`indicate the location of a cursor in program grid 112. Id. at 10:24–25. The
`’595 patent discloses that a viewer can navigate program grid 112 by using
`the left, right, up, and down arrow keys on the remote control. Id. at 10:25–
`28. The ’595 patent explains that a viewer can use a Select key on the
`remote control to select a highlighted program. Id. at 11:18–19. According
`to the patent, “[a]fter a program has been selected, the viewer can choose to
`tune to the selected program, record the selected program, or simply see
`more information about the selected program.” Id. at 11:19–22.
`Figure 10 of the ’595 patent, shown below, illustrates a program
`selection screen that appears when the viewer selects a program from screen
`100. Id. at 19:4–9.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 10 above, program selection screen 500
`includes program title window 502, description window 504, video clip
`window 506, and menu window 508. Id. at 19:16–18. The ’595 patent
`discloses that the “Add to Scheduled Viewing List” is used to add an entry
`for the selected program into a scheduled viewing list. Id. at 19:45–47.
`According to the ’595 patent, “[w]hen the current time approaches or
`matches the telecast time for a program listed in the scheduled viewing list,
`the display 84 (FIG. 2) displays a prompt . . . notifying the viewer that a
`program of interest is about to start.” Id. at 19:47–50.
`The ’595 patent also discloses that the menu choice “Add to
`Recording List” is used to add an entry for the selected program into a
`recording list. Id. at 19:55–56. According to the ’595 patent, “[w]hen the
`current time approaches or matches the telecast time for a program listed in
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`the Recording List, the control unit 74 (FIG. 2) causes the tuning circuitry 72
`(FIG. 2) to tune to the appropriate channel.” Id. at 19:56–60. The ’595
`patent adds: “Through the IR transmitter 90 (FIG. 2), the control unit 74
`(FIG. 2) also causes the VCR 88 (FIG. 2) to begin recording at the
`appropriate time . . . .” Id. at 19:60–64.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Among the challenged claims (claims 1–24), claims 1, 9, and 17 are
`independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the challenged
`claims and reads as follows:
`1. A method for controlling a first tuner and a second
`tuner with an interactive television program guide, said method
`comprising:
`receiving television programs and program schedule
`information;
`storing the program schedule information in a memory;
`causing a display device to display a program guide
`display with said interactive television program guide;
`receiving a user selection to record, with a video recorder,
`a first television program indicated on said program guide
`display with said interactive television program guide;
`receiving a user selection to view a second television
`program indicated on said program guide display with said
`interactive television program guide; and
`directing an output of said first tuner of said first television
`program selected to be recorded to said video recorder and an
`output of said second tuner of said second television program
`selected to be viewed to said display device with said interactive
`television program guide, such that said first television program
`selected to be recorded is recorded by said video recorder at the
`same time that said second television program selected to be
`viewed is displayed by said display device, and wherein a set-top
`box includes two tuners, one each for said video recorder and
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`said display device, said two tuners comprising said first tuner
`and said second tuner.
`Id. at 30:56–31:15 (emphases added to disputed limitations).
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Principles of Law
`To prevail in its challenge to Patent Owner’s patent claims, Petitioner
`must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are
`unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). “In an [inter partes
`review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with
`particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v.
`Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C.
`§ 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with
`particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to
`each claim”)). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic
`Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–
`27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
`U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis
`of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence
`of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`“A determination of whether a patent claim is invalid as obvious under § 103
`requires consideration of all four Graham factors, and it is error to reach a
`conclusion of obviousness until all those factors are considered.” Apple Inc.
`v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1048 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc)
`(citations omitted). “This requirement is in recognition of the fact that each
`of the Graham factors helps inform the ultimate obviousness determination.”
`Id.
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
`time it was made, 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires us to resolve the level of
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383
`U.S. at 17. “The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art
`lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”
`Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The
`person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed
`to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC,
`Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Factors that may be considered in
`determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include, but are not limited
`to, the types of problems encountered in the art, the sophistication of the
`technology, and educational level of active workers in the field. Id. In a
`given case, one or more factors may predominate. Id. Generally, it is easier
`to establish obviousness under a higher level of ordinary skill in the art.
`Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir.
`2011) (“A less sophisticated level of skill generally favors a determination of
`nonobviousness . . . while a higher level of skill favors the reverse.”).
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`Petitioner asserts that the field of the invention of the ’595 patent is
`television set-top boxes and interactive program guides. Pet. 11 (citing Ex.
`1101, 1:18–23). Petitioner, relying on the testimony of its declarant, Dr.
`Rhyne, asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or
`computer science, and at least two to three years of experience or familiarity
`with interactive television program guides, television video signal
`processing, graphical user interfaces, and associated computer software.” Id.
`(citing Ex. 1113 ¶ 25). Petitioner asserts that, alternatively, a person of
`ordinary skill in this field “could have equivalent experience either in
`industry or research, such as designing, developing, evaluating, testing, or
`implementing the techniques listed above.” Id. (citing Ex. 1113 ¶ 25).
`Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed definition for
`the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. Patent Owner’s
`declarant, Dr. Shamos, opines that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or
`computer science, and two to three years of experience relating to electronic
`content delivery, such as experience with design or technical analysis of
`cable or satellite television systems, set-top boxes, multimedia systems or
`electronic program guides, or any equivalent knowledge, training, and/or
`experience.” Ex. 2109 ¶ 16. Dr. Shamos also states that his proposed
`definition “differs only slightly from Dr. Rhyne’s, and [he does] not consider
`the differences to be material.” Id. ¶ 13.
`We do not ascertain a meaningful difference between the declarant’s
`proposals and the parties do not argue that any issue in the case turns on
`such a difference. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`Dr. Rhyne is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art
`and we therefore adopt that level for the purposes of the analysis below.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`Patent Owner filed a motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) requesting
`that a district court-type claim construction be applied to the ’595 patent,
`which the Patent Owner certifies will expire within 18 months of the filing
`of the Petition. Paper 6. Petitioner similarly asserts that the ’595 patent will
`expire within that timeframe and states that “Petitioner assumes that Patent
`Owner will file for Phillips claim construction.” Pet. 10.
`We granted Patent Owner’s request (Inst. Dec. 9–10) and apply a
`district court-type approach to claim construction. Under this approach,
`claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of
`the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) (en banc). “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim
`limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining
`the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution
`history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
`Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`1312–17).
`In the Petition, Petitioner proposes constructions for “interactive
`television program guide” and “set-top box.” Pet. 10–11. In the Patent
`Owner Response, Patent Owner proposes a different construction for
`“interactive television program guide” and does not propose, or address
`Petitioner’s, construction of set-top box. PO Resp. 11–16. In its Reply,
`Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner “has not disputed that the prior art
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`discloses an [interactive television program guide] even under its own
`construction.” Reply 2.
`At the hearing, both parties acknowledged that construction of the
`term “interactive television program guide” was not necessary to resolve
`whether the prior art taught the claim limitations as asserted by Petitioner.
`Tr. 29:14–30:2, 52:18–54:4. Patent Owner acknowledged that both Young
`’121 and Young ’268 disclose an interactive television program guide. Tr.
`52:2–54:4; see also PO Resp. 36–37 (“Young ’121 is directed to a set-top
`box with an interactive program guide . . . .”); Ex. 1101, 2:29–32 (the ’595
`patent stating that Young ’121 discloses a system that provides an interactive
`program guide).
`We determine that no claim terms require express construction in
`order to determine the patentability issues raised in this inter partes review.
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness over Young ’121, Granger, and Browne
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–24 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Young ’121, Granger, and Browne. Pet. 9, 23–51.
`Relying in part on the testimony of Dr. Rhyne, Petitioner explains how the
`references teach or suggest the claim limitations and provides reasoning for
`combining the teachings of the references. Id. at 23–51.
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments and
`evidence of record. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner
`has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–24 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Young ’121,
`Granger, and Browne.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`Summary of Young ’121
`1.
`Young ’121 is a U.S. patent titled “TV Schedule System and Process.”
`Ex. 1108, [54]. Young ’121 discloses a system that “enable[s] a user to
`program a video cassette recorder (VCR) for unattended operation by
`making a simple selection from a menu.” Id. at 1:21–24. Young ’121
`discloses a Program Guide and Schedule Setup mode, which “allows the
`user to create a weekly reminder calendar.” Id. at 15:20–22. According to
`Young ’121, “[i]f the TV is not on when the program starts, the reminder
`process will turn on the VCR to start recording the program.” Id. at 15:24–
`26.
`
`Young ’121 illustrates “[a] typical schedule” as follows:
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 15:58–16:4. The schedule above is a split screen, which displays the
`scheduled programs on the top and a program list on the bottom. Id. at
`15:46–48. Young ’121 discloses that “[t]o add a program to the schedule,
`use the P key 240 [on the remote control illustrated in Figure 5] to toggle the
`cursor to the program listing (lower half of display).” Id. at 16:18–20. Next,
`according to Young ’121, a user should use the cursor, page, or + keys on
`the remote control to locate the desired program and use the SEL key to
`store the program in the schedule. Id. at 16:20–22. Young ’121 also
`discloses that to cancel a scheduled program, a user should use the P key to
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`switch to the upper display, use the up/down or page keys, and press the C
`key to cancel the program. Id. at 16:27–32.
`Figure 4b of Young ’121 is shown below.
`
`
`
`Figure 4b, above, illustrates a receiver system. Id. at 9:5–7. The
`receiver system includes programmable TV tuner 164, which, according to
`Young ’121, receives the television broadcast signal from antenna 162 and
`supplies it to data demodulator 169 and video switcher 172. Id. at 8:25–30.
`Young ’121 discloses that data demodulator 169 supplies the program
`schedule information signals, which have been stripped from the television
`broadcast signals and digitized, to CPU 178. Id. at 8:32–35. Young ’121
`discloses that “[f]rom the user inputs on line 192 and the control program,
`the CPU generates control signals for the programmable TV tuner 164,
`which are supplied on line 202, and video display information signals, which
`are supplied to video display generator 204 on line 206.” Id. at 8:48–53.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`According to Young ’121, “[t]he CPU 178 supplies control signals for the
`video switcher 172 on line 210 to switch the video signal outputs of the
`video switcher 172 on lines 212 and 214 to the TV receiver 200 and VCR
`216 between the schedule information video signals from generator 204 and
`the program video signals from tuner 164.” Id. at 8:56–62.
`Young ’121 also discloses that, “[i]n order to carry out background
`recording of a program while watching another program on the TV receiver
`200, line 212 is connected to the AUX input of the TV set 200.” Id. at 9:37–
`40. According to Young ’121, by setting the AUX input switch to connect
`antenna 232 to TV receiver 200, “VCR 216 can . . . record the scheduled
`programs without interfering with normal TV viewing.” Id. at 9:40–45.
`
`Summary of Granger
`2.
`Granger is a U.S. patent titled “Simplified Set-top Converter for
`Broadband Switched Network.” Ex. 1118, [54]. Granger discloses a set-top
`converter that allows recording and watching any selected channel
`simultaneously. Id. at 5:21–23, 5:35–38. Granger states that, in a
`conventional cable television system, “the recording of one channel while
`another one is watched is not possible if both are scrambled.” Id. at 3:45–
`49. Granger explains that because there is no descrambling function in a
`VCR, it cannot be directly used to record, except with non-scrambled
`channels. Id. at 3:21–25. Granger adds that “[i]f a subscriber wished to
`record one scrambled channel while watching another scrambled channel, a
`second set-top converter is needed[,] leading to a rather complicated
`connection and an excessive cost.” Id. at 3:58–61.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`Figure 4 of Granger, shown below, illustrates a set-top converter
`“having two tuners so as to enable recording and viewing of two channels
`simultaneously.” Id. at 5:1–4.
`
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 4 above, the set-top converter includes two
`tuners—tuner 102 and tuner 104. See id. at 5:1–4, 5:35–39. Granger
`discloses that the above embodiment provides “dual selection capability.”
`Id. at 5:21–23.
`Granger also discloses another embodiment in which “one of six fixed
`frequency channels delivered to all subscribers’ premises [is] dedicated, if
`desired, to a VCR so as to permit use with a set-top converter without any
`tuner.” Id. at Figs. 5A, 5B, 5:5–9.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`Summary of Browne
`3.
`Browne is a PCT application titled “Large Capacity, Random Access,
`Multi-Source Recorder Player.” Ex. 1110, [54]. Browne discloses an
`audio/video recorder system that “can be controlled by user input to allow
`for automatic recording of selected programs simultaneously input from
`multiple sources.” Ex. 1110, Abstract.
`Figure 1 of Browne is shown below.
`
`As illustrated in Figure 1 above, multi-source recorder player 100
`receives a plurality of audio and/or video signals 101a–101f from a plurality
`of sources, such as VHF TV broadcasting, UHF TV broadcasting, and cable
`television. Id. at 7:29–33, 11:20–24.6 According to Browne, “[t]he user of
`
`
`
`
`6 Citations to Browne are to the exhibit page (at the bottom of the exhibit)
`and line number.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`the multi-source recorder player 100 communicates with controller 105 in
`order to control the multi-source recorder player 100 and to retrieve data,
`stored as programs, in storage section 104.” Id. at 15:13–17.
`Browne discloses a setup page screen (shown in Figure 3) which
`“allows the user to connect selected outputs, for example, outputs 112a–
`112c shown in Fig. 1, to a desired receiving device.” Id. at 21:31–22:1. For
`example, according to Browne, one output may be connected to a television
`and another output may be connected to a VCR. Id. at 22:2–5.
`Browne discloses that recorded programs are stored in storage section
`104. Id. at 26:18. Browne discloses that “[a] list of the programs stored and
`set for storing . . . may be viewed.” Id. at 26:19–22. The stored program list
`screen is shown in Figure 6 below. Id. at 26:25–26.
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 6 above, the stored program list includes
`information regarding programs that were recorded or set to be recorded. Id.
`at 26:26–29. Browne also discloses a remote control panel (shown in Figure
`14) for use with the multi-source recorder player. Id. at 34:22–23.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`4. Analysis
`a. Reason to combine
`Petitioner provides persuasive evidence for why a skilled artisan
`would have combined the teachings of Young ’121, Granger, and Browne in
`the manner claimed (as recited in claims 1–24). Pet. 23–28; Ex. 1113
`¶¶ 151–177.
`Young ’121 discloses receiving program schedule information for
`display and allowing users to select programs for viewing or recording. Ex.
`1108, Abstract, 10:12–15, 11:62–65, 15:18–16:33. Specifically, Young ’121
`discloses that video signals generated from the received program schedule
`information provide user selection menus listing programs available to view
`or record. Id. at 4:68–5:18, 5:37–43, 10:12–15, 11:62–65, 15:18–16:33. As
`illustrated in Figures 4 and 4b, Young ’121 discloses that tuner 164 outputs
`the broadcast signal received from antenna 162 to video switcher 172, which
`also receives schedule information video signals from video display
`generator 204. Id. at Fig. 4, 8:27–30, 8:53–56. Young ’121 also discloses
`an embodiment that allows users “to carry out background recording of a
`program while watching another program on the [television].” Id. at 9:37–
`40. According to this embodiment, illustrated in Figure 4b, the viewed
`program is received via antenna 232 directly connected to television receiver
`200 while the program recorded in the background is received via antenna
`162 and output to VCR 216 via tuner 164. Id. at Fig. 4b, 9:37–45. As
`illustrated in Figure 4b, antenna 232 is connected directly to television
`receiver 200 and is not connected to CPU 178. A person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have recognized that because antenna 232 is directly connected
`to television receiver 200, CPU 178 could not provide control signals for
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00867
`Patent 8,713,595 B2
`
`tuning the broadcast signals received at antenna 232. Ex. 1113 ¶ 165. An
`ordinarily skilled artisan also would have recognized that, with this
`embodiment, the user selection menus disclosed in Young could only have
`been used to select the program to record in the background and could not
`have been used to select the program to simultaneously watch via antenna
`232. Id.
`Granger, however, discloses (as illustrated in Figure 4) a set-top
`converter that receives, at RF input connection 28, television signals that are
`provided to first tuner 102 and second tuner 104, permitting simultaneous
`watching and recording of different television programs. Ex. 1118, Fig. 4,
`1:6–10, 2:53–57, 5:1–4, 5:36–40; Ex. 1113 ¶ 167.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have added a second tuner
`to the receiver system taught in Young ’121, as taught by Granger, for the
`purpose of enabling users to employ Young ’121’s user selection menus to
`directly select both a first television program to watch on a television and a
`second television program to simultaneously record with a VCR. Ex. 1113
`¶ 168.
`Moreover, Browne discloses a multi-source recorder player having
`multiple demodulators (113a–f), each receiving one of multiple input signals
`(101a–f), such as television signals received via antenna, cable, and satellite
`inputs, and each being controlled by controller 105. Ex. 1110, Fig. 1, 11:4–
`24, 14:3–5. Browne discloses that users access controller 105 from
`displayed control screens, such as “to select program source, channel,
`recording time, erasure, and output settings.” Ex. 1110, 20:1–10; see also
`id. at 15:27–29 (“The controller 105 generates a virtual control screen which
`may be placed on any screen to control .
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
