`
`
`
`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 IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: June 6, 2018
`__________
`
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
`STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`FREDERIC M. MEEKER
`Banner & Witcoff
`1100 13th Street N.W., Suite 1200
`Washington, D.C. 20005-4051
`(202) 824-3116
`fmeeker@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MARK D. ROWLAND
`Ropes & Gray
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`(650) 617-4000
`mark.rowland@ropesgray.com
`
`SCOTT A. MCKEOWN
`Ropes & Gray
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006-6807
`(202) 508-4740
`scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`
`
`STEVEN PEPE
`Ropes & Gray
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036-8704
`(212) 596-9046
`steven.pepe@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, June
`
`6, 2018, commencing at 9:00 a.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE BENOIT: Good afternoon. We are convened for the
`consolidated oral arguments for IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941, which
`challenges U.S. Patent 9,172,987.
`I am Judge Benoit. With me in Alexandria are Judge Easthom and
`Judge Margolies.
`With regard to IPR2017-00941, we’re hearing arguments today
`concerning the grounds that were instituted in our September 11, 2017
`decision to institute.
`With that, let’s start with appearances. Petitioner?
`MR. MEEKER: Thank you, Your Honor. Fred Meeker with the law
`firm of Banner and Witcoff, representing Comcast Cable Communication.
`On my right is John Curry, who will be running the slides. And Seth
`Kramer is the representative of the company. And we do have a number of
`our summers in the back of the room observing. So, thank you.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Welcome everyone. Patent Owner?
`MR. ROWLAND: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Mark Rowland,
`Ropes and Gray. Arguing for this proceeding will be Scott McKeown and
`Steven Pepe, also of Ropes and Gray. We have with us summer associates.
`One thing I wanted to ask about, there were some objections to some
`of the demonstratives, this has to do with the construction issue. I know in
`the earlier proceeding, we proceeded with that and then, if you wanted to
`hear argument on it, that could be part of the presentation.
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: No, as we did before, we’re not going to rule on
`the objections. Petitioner may refer to both Slides 14 and 47, and we will
`take it under advisement.
`MR. ROWLAND: Okay.
`JUDGE BENOIT: But I would ask Petitioner not to use the
`shorthand for your claimed construction that appears on 14 and 47, if you
`would be more precise when you talk about the program function claim
`construction.
`MR. MEEKER: Yes, Your Honor.
`MR. ROWLAND: Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Thank you. Petitioner, you may begin and you
`may reserve rebuttal time.
`MR. MEEKER: Okay. We would like to reserve 15 minutes for
`rebuttal, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BENOIT: All right. So, if you give me a minute to play
`with the machine. You may begin when ready.
`MR. MEEKER: May it please the Board, for the record, Fred
`Meeker with the law firm of Banner and Witcoff, representing Comcast
`Cable Communication LLC.
`Turning to Slide 2. Slide 2 shows the instituted grounds. This is a
`simple case, Your Honors, it’s essentially a web browser on a set-top box.
`Comcast petitions have shown that a web browser on a set-top box
`arrangement existed in the prior art through several different instituted
`
`5
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`grounds: Wugofski, in combination with either Ladd or Straub; Kamada, in
`combination with either Pedrizetti or Wang.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Excuse me, if I may interrupt, I had one more
`housekeeping item I wanted to ask.
`Your reply paper in IPR2017-00941, it looks like you filed about
`three copies of it on one day. And I’’m assuming that the correct paper that
`you’’d like us to use is Paper 25, which was the last paper filed on March
`15.
`
`MR. MEEKER: I believe that to be correct, Your Honor. There
`were some issues with the filing system that day. So, I do apologize to the
`court for that.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Oh, no problem, I just wanted to make sure that
`we all agreed that we understood what the paper was.
`MR. MEEKER: I believe that to be the case, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Thank you.
`MR. MEEKER: Okay. I think the clock -- okay.
`Slide 3 shows Figures 8 and 9 of the ’987 patent. From this slide,
`you can see the purported invention of the ’987 patent is simply a set-top
`box implemented -- or a browser implemented on a set-top box.
`Turning to Slide 8. The first display screen is shown, and in this
`case, in this example in the ’987 patent, it’s just displaying a webpage.
`So, the webpage is not required in the first display, first generated for
`display. It could be generated through any other type of program other than
`an HTML program, it just says, based on a non-markup language program.
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`But Figure 8 displays the first webpage, and then Figure 9 shows
`how the webpage is -- displays a second webpage and that’s somehow
`resized, repositioned or restyled. And it needs to be on a set-top box.
`So, prior to the invention in 1998, it was well known that browsers
`could be on set-top boxes. There was a convergence in the industry between
`PCs and televisions, so personal computers got cards stuck in them that were
`essentially set-top boxes so you could watch television on your computer.
`Wugofski talks about the destination gateway PC that combined a
`set-top box with a personal computer, an IBM PC. And that’s one of the
`primary references.
`JUDGE BENOIT: And while you are talking about set-top boxes
`and convergence and using PCs, I did want to talk to you a little bit about the
`claim construction of set-top box that you put forward.
`And I understand that there’s not a dispute as to what the
`construction is of the set-top boxes. As I understand the Patent Owner’s
`arguments, there’s no contention that Wugofski does not disclose a set-top
`box.
`
`Even so, the burden, as we all know, rests with the Petitioner to
`demonstrate unpatentability.
`MR. MEEKER: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BENOIT: And my reading of your papers is that, for the
`Wugofski reference, you’re saying the computer 110 is the set-top box,
`right?
`
`MR. MEEKER: Yes, Your Honor.
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: So, my question to you is twofold. In the patent
`specification, the challenged patent, not the prior art, Column 5, Lines 29 to
`55 – I will give you a minute to turn there.
`MR. MEEKER: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BENOIT: So, when I read that section, it describes a
`difference between the set-top box shown in Figure 2 in the specification
`from Figure 3, which it describes as a more generalized embodiment. In
`Figure 3, there’s control circuitry 42 and there’s a monitor.
`And then, if you go further down to Lines 48, it talks about, the
`functions of the control circuitry 42 may be provided using they set-top box
`arrangement of Figure 2. Alternatively, these functions may be integrated
`into an advanced television receiver, a personal computer television, PC/TV,
`or any other suitable arrangement.
`So, I’d like to hear argument about the difference that the patent
`seems to be drawing between the set-top box in Figure 2, which deals with a
`television set, and then, in Figure 3, the more generalized embodiment that
`alternatively encompasses the personal computer television, which seems to
`be the TV along the Wugofski lines and what you’ve just talked about, in
`terms of a convergence.
`MR. MEEKER: Okay. So, if we could bring up Slide 65? So, with
`respect to Figure 3, the computer 110 -- I’m sorry, this isn’t Wugofski. I’m
`sorry. Could you go to the ’987?
`So, the ’987 patent, Your Honor, talks specifically about direct video
`broadcast.
`
`8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`Can you -- and so, Your Honor, you would say that perhaps there’s a
`distinction between a computer and a set-top box, is that correct?
`JUDGE BENOIT: I’m inquiring about that.
`MR. MEEKER: Okay. So, in essence, these set-top boxes at the
`time started to conclude addition computer-like functions, web browsers and
`so forth. Also, computers incorporated additional functions, such as set-top
`box functions, decoders, that sort of thing.
`So, there was an overall convergence between the two. So, if you
`look at the functionality associated with a traditional set-top box and a
`traditional computer arrangement, those two merged. So, now, I can watch
`television on my set-top box, it can now bring in, decode information, and
`display it on a screen.
`The set-top box at the time became digital. So, digital television
`occurred at the time, you could have web browsers on your set-top box, and
`that’s the convergence talked about by Wugofski.
`So, I do believe that our definition of set-top box covers both the
`’987, Wugofski, Kamada, they’re all examples of different set-top boxes.
`And I think it’s a distinction without a difference.
`So, whether there’s additional computer operations, such as web
`browsers, in a set-top box, or you have a computer and add television
`functions to it, you end up with the same set-top box, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BENOIT: And so, you’re reading of Column 5 of the
`challenged patent, when it talks about a more generalized embodiment of the
`
`9
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`user equipment 22 which has the name set-top box, you’re not seeing that as
`a distinction of how the patent is using set-top box?
`MR. MEEKER: I don’t, Your Honor. I think the set-top box is a
`very generalized environment, where it brings down television programs and
`converts them.
`So, whether those television programs come down in analog or
`digital, a set-top box provides a tuner to tune to a particular television
`program from amongst a number of them, typically runs some sort of user
`interface on that tuner, and provides those channels to a television.
`It’s typically a separate piece of equipment. In the case where it’s
`integrated into a computer, the computer screen then becomes the television,
`Your Honor.
`JUDGE BENOIT: All right, thank you.
`MR. MEEKER: It’s exactly the same function in substantially the
`same form factor.
`JUDGE BENOIT: So, your reading of Column 6 would be that a
`more generalized embodiment of the 22 equipment in Figure 2, the user
`television equipment 22 is not saying that a more generalized embodiment of
`a set-top box is control circuitry and an example is a personal computer
`television, PC/TV.
`Your reading of that would be that a more generalized embodiment
`of the particular embodiment shown in Figure 2 includes these other things
`and you would view that as the Figure 3 also including a set-top box, even
`though different terms are used?
`
`10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`MR. MEEKER: Yes, Your Honor, exactly. So, I do believe the
`personal PC/TV described here is a set-top box, as well as something that’s
`in an individual box called a set-top box.
`They both perform exactly the same function, exactly the same way,
`contain exactly the same hardware. They both contain the CPU and the
`tuner and some user interface. So, those functions are identical, regardless
`of what label you put on them.
`They have the same software. Set-top boxes have operating systems,
`they may have lighter operating systems, but they have operating systems.
`They have PC functions, they have stuff that’s shown on the screen,
`user interfaces, as well as television functions, you can turn the channel and
`tune to them, exactly like the set-top box.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Great, thank you. And I have one more question -
`
`-
`
`MR. MEEKER: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BENOIT: -- along these lines, and I appreciate your
`argument in this regard.
`The technical dictionary definition that you put into evidence, the
`Microsoft dictionary definition, that Dr. Lippman opines about, that was a --
`the definition in a Microsoft computer dictionary is very specific, that it’s a
`device that converts a cable TV signal to an input signal to the TV set.
`And Dr. Lippman opined, at least in Paragraph 61 of his declaration
`and Exhibit 1006 in the -939 case, there’s equivalent text in the -941, that he
`said that that was a reasonable example of a definition of a set-top box.
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`MR. MEEKER: It is an example, Your Honor. So, there are set-top
`boxes for satellite receivers called direct video broadcast, that’s in
`Wugofski.
`So, whether you get your signal via satellite, whether it comes in on
`a coaxial cable or an optical cable, those are all examples, or even over a
`modem or over the internet, they’re all examples of set-top boxes that
`receive television signals remotely, converts those televisions signals so they
`can be displayed on screen, base band, and display them on the screen.
`So, whether it’s integrated into your personal computer or it sits on
`top of your VCR or underneath your television, they all do the same thing.
`The direct video broadcast just takes a satellite signal that comes
`down and converts that, it tunes to a particular band of frequencies, converts
`it to a channel, and displays it on your screen.
`JUDGE BENOIT: And so, is that the background that Dr. Lippman
`understood when he used -- he started with the Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary definition of set-top box and he expanded it to include television
`set or other similar display devices?
`MR. MEEKER: I agree with that, Your Honor. That’s --
`JUDGE BENOIT: All right.
`MR. MEEKER: -- exactly how he approached it. And the display
`device is either a TV or really any monitor. In fact, you can plug a monitor
`right into the back of a set-top box and it will display. The monitor -- set-top
`box usually has VGA comes out, you plug it into your monitor, it will
`display. Even in this time or later time.
`12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: All right. Thank you very much.
`MR. MEEKER: Okay. So, turning back to the presentation, Slide 4
`shows an overview of the ’987 patent.
`The first step, which is the generating step, is displaying your first
`screen display. In this case, it’s undisputed that browsers are written in a
`non-markup language. That has been undisputed throughout this. And if
`you look, it says based on a non-markup language.
`So, the first example in Figure 8 is receiving an HTML document,
`it’s based on -- and the display is then generated from that. The browser
`generates the display and displays it, so that first HTML document is based
`on the non-markup language, which is the browser.
`Turning to the next slide, Slide 5. Slide 5 shows the remaining
`limitations of claim 1. So, there are four additional steps, they are color-
`coded.
`
`There’s the receiving step, you receive a new HTML document.
`You interpret that HTML document. You update the set-top box, so once
`you interpret the document, you have to update the display buffers in the set-
`top box. And then, you generate that document onto the screen.
`Turning to Slide 6. Slide 6 shows that Claims 1 and 9 are virtually
`identical. So, there’s color-coding in each of those claims to show there’s no
`substantial differences between those claims.
`Turning to Slide 7. Slide 7 has each of the instituted grounds. With
`regard to Wugofski and Kamada, it shows the three issues in dispute.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`So, for Wugofski, it’s whether Wugofski teaches the interpreting
`step of the claims. Two is whether Wugofski teaches the updating step of
`the claims. And then, three is the motivation to combine, which I don’t
`think is contested with respect to Ladd. It is contested with respect to Straub
`and Davis.
`Under Kamada, similar. So, the first issue is whether Kamada
`discloses the same display item assigned to the second program function.
`Two is whether Kamada discloses any program functions. And that
`relates to whether it’s program guide functions or program functions. And
`three is the motivation to combine Kamada with Pedrizetti and Wang. And
`I’ll get into more detail of these in due course.
`Turning to the Wugofski grounds, and in particular, the interpreting
`step. So, the interpreting step is, interpreting the markup language document
`with the set-top box to determine that the markup language document
`assigns a second program function to the display item.
`Slide 10 shows how Wugofski teaches the claimed interpreting step.
`So, Wugofski has a browser that interprets HTML documents, just like the
`’987 patent, there is no distinction.
`So, turning to Slide 11. Slide 11 shows that the Patent Owner’s
`contention that Wugofski does not assign a second program function to the
`same display item is not correct. Wugofski teaches the display items have a
`default layout document.
`So, in Wugofski, similar to the ’987, there are default layout
`documents. So, those default layout documents control, if there’s no
`14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`additional HTML code that specifies the layout. And so, Wugofski in fact
`does show the second program function is assigned to the same display.
`With respect to Slide 12. So, Slide 12 shows the interpreting step.
`On the left is Wugofski, on the right is the ’987 patent. So, the display
`elements are the same.
`In both Wugofski and the ’987, they both use standard HTML
`language. So, it is standard at this time. They both use the browser to
`display the standard HTML language. So, what’s shown on the screen here
`is standard HTML applied and rendered with a standard browser.
`So, Wugofski here shows Object 10 called the XYZ logo. It has a
`spin rate and a lifetime associated with it. So, by varying the parameters in
`the HTML, you can cause the spin rate -- you can cause the logo to either
`just appear on the screen, to spin slowly, or spin quicker.
`The second is lifetime. So, whether the logo shows up for a short
`time or a long time, is all controlled by the parameters. Size and position are
`also simple parameters.
`So, HTML has essentially a series of functions built into the
`browsers. So, by specifying these functions, the browser controls how the
`webpage is rendered. And they’re remarkably similar.
`So, if you go to Slide 13, it’s not unusual, because it’s both based on
`an HTML standard, the ’987 and Wugofski’s functions are virtually
`identical.
`Scroll rate, screen layout, resize, reposition, restyle, assigning
`behaviors to the display, buttons, logo spin rates, menu actions, performing
`15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`query, adjusting display time, they all have similar program functions
`assigned to the same display item, by virtue of varying the HTML.
`Slide 14 --
`JUDGE BENOIT: Before you get to Slide 14, let me ask you a
`couple questions about the display item.
`I understand from your papers, and I also believe that the Patent
`Owner also uses display item in the claims, it’s interchangeable with the
`display element described in the specification.
`MR. MEEKER: Yes, Your Honor. In fact, they at one point
`amended their entire spec to only have, I think it’s display item. So, they
`changed everything to display item and the Examiner allowed that, showing
`they are essentially interchangeable.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Okay. And your view of display item is that it’s
`broad enough to encompass what’s displayed on the screen and not
`necessarily limited to the code of the HTML or the non-markup language?
`MR. MEEKER: Exactly, Your Honor. So, if you look at the claim,
`it doesn’t have a data structure claim. And so, Patent Owner saying display
`item is the underlying data structure, that’s not in the claim and it’s not how
`they asserted it and applied it in the Southern District of New York.
`So, if you go to the Southern District of New York, they said a
`display item can be one pixel all the way up to the entire screen. Simply
`going from powering on to connecting to your user experience, two screens
`that occur in sequence, is a display item.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`So, they’ve interpreted this very broadly, simply not in their claims.
`And if you look at their spec, there’s all kinds of examples of display items
`and they track almost exactly, between Wugofski and the ’987. They’re
`essentially the same sort of display items you can display with an HTML
`page.
`
`Okay. So, turning to the next slide, which is Slide 14. And moving
`on to program function. So, the Patent Owner construed program function
`broadly in the Southern District of New York.
`And in fact, there was some dispute over how program function
`should be construed in the Southern District of New York. The parties took
`varying positions with respect to that.
`So, Rovi attempted to add guide to the definition of program
`function in the Southern District of New York. They tried to construe this --
`and in fact, both parties put forth a definition of program guide function.
`The judge in the Southern District of New York disagreed with that. They
`said, it’s not limited to guide.
`Further, Comcast attempted to add not screen layouts to program
`function. Again, the judge in the Southern District of New York said
`program function is not restricted, it doesn’t have the negative limitation of
`not screen layouts.
`And so, the District Court held that program function requires no
`construction, but rejected the parties’ attempt to limit this to a much
`narrower construction. And that’s consistent with the prosecution history in
`this case, where they explicitly took out program guide from function.
`17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`And then, the Examiner changed the title. He said, I’m changing the
`title to eliminate guide to make it consistent with the scope of the claims.
`Slides 15 and 16 show that both Wugofski and the ’987 patent use
`standard HTML to activate and deactivate functions almost identically. So,
`in Wugofski, at Slide 16, the objects are activated or deactivated using
`parameters. So, you can set the spin rate to zero or any value that you want.
`Same thing with display time.
`Turning to Slide 17. Slide 17 relates to the Patent Owner’s
`arguments concerning early and late binding. And we would argue that both
`the ’987 patent and Wugofski have aspects of early and late binding.
`So, not all attributes or parameters work with all screen displays. So,
`if I have a search screen, I don’t want my search, where I enter my search, I
`don’t want it spinning. So, the ’987 patent says only some attributes are
`assignable to some screen displays or display elements.
`And Wugofski says the same thing. It basically says, only the
`parameters associated with that screen element are relevant to that. And
`then, within those parameters that are relevant at run time, you can set those
`parameters to essentially control spin rate, size, position, layout, et cetera.
`And we would say, turning to Slide 18, that early binding, late
`binding, execution time, run time, compile time, none of these concepts are
`even disclosed in the patent, much less claimed.
`So, Slide 19 shows aspects of early and late binding for the ’987
`patent. Slide 20 shows aspects of early and late binding for Wugofski.
`
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`And then, that takes us to Wugofski’s updating step. So, turning to
`Slide 22-24. So, the updating step is updating the set-top box, based on the
`markup language document, such that the display item has the second
`program function.
`So, Slides 22-24 shows that the Petition established that Wugofski
`teaches the updating step in three different ways. In particular, if you go to
`Slide 22, it shows going from -- Wugofski shows going from a default
`document to HTML. So, this updating step is also taught by the ’987 patent,
`it’s taught by Wugofski.
`Turning to Slide 23, varying HTML files. So, another way the ’987
`patent teaches updating Figures 8 and 9, is to simply change the HTML file.
`So, if you change the HTML file, you’ll change the display and the behavior
`of display items. And ’987 works exactly the same way.
`Slide 24 shows how Wugofski updates the display items using plug-
`ins. So, the functions that we talked about earlier can be updated in
`browsers. So, when you download new plug-ins, you update the
`functionality of the browser.
`So, whether it’s a new Adobe or Flash plug-in, occasionally
`browsers are updated, they contain new functions and then, the HTML can
`activate those functions. It’s exactly what the ’987 patent teaches as well.
`So, turning to Slide 25. The Patent Owner made an argument that
`the display item is only generated once. We think that’s incorrect, the
`display item is generated in the claims at least twice.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`So, the first time, you generate a display item, the first HTML page,
`or the first default document. The second time is when you have an updated
`HTML page. So, it talks about regenerating. And the generating step is in
`fact claimed twice.
`Going to Slide 26. The Patent Owner made an argument that
`Wugofski doesn’t teach the steps in the same order that are claimed in the
`’987 patent. And in fact, they said that the interpreting and the updating step
`are interchanged in Wugofski.
`We believe that to be a misstatement of the argument we made in our
`Petition, and in fact, they misquoted our argument. HTML files -- so, when
`you first generate a display, that’s Figure 8 in ’987, that’s what Wugofski
`does, whether it’s default document or first webpage.
`Then, you receive the new HTML document seen in the ’987, seen in
`Wugofski. You interpret that HTML document. You update the set-top box
`based on the new HTML document. And you generate a display.
`Standard HTML, standard browsers, they both work the same way in
`Wugofski and ’987.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: So, the default document, that’s based on a
`non-markup language? Is that --
`MR. MEEKER: So, the default document, it can be based on a
`markup language or a non-markup language. So, in the first step of this
`claim, it doesn’t require a markup language.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Yes, it seems to require a non-markup
`language.
`
`20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`MR. MEEKER: Well, it -- the claim’s written based on a non-
`markup language. So, a browser is based on -- is a non-markup language.
`So, if you generate an HTML document using a browser, you’ve generated a
`display based on a non-markup language.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Oh, okay.
`MR. MEEKER: It could have been in the operating system, it could
`have been a separate program. They essentially claimed a web browser on a
`set-top box, but they did it with a lot of words not based on a non-markup
`language.
`I mean, it was really clever drafting, but it’s essentially a browser on
`a set-top box. When you strip it all away, that’s all you’re left with.
`Okay. So, moving on to Slide 28. Wugofski teaches all the
`limitations of claim 1. To the extent Wugofski is contended that it doesn’t
`teach preprogramming, preprogramming is taught by Ladd.
`So, the plug-ins are one of the examples in the ’987 of
`preprogramming. Wugofski incorporates Ladd by reference and for the very
`purpose of teaching the details of how plug-ins update a web browser.
`So, the whole preprogramming that’s discussed in the ’987 is exactly
`discussed in Wugofski, Ladd is incorporated by reference, for the same
`purpose that we use it for, teaching details about plug-ins. And I don’t think
`it’s in dispute on the motivation to combine Ladd with Wugofski.
`So, Slides 29-31 talk about additional details on how Wugofski
`incorporates Ladd by reference.
`
`21
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`So, turning to Slide 32. Wugofski, in combination with Straub. So,
`Wugofski teaches all the limitations of claim 1. To the extent
`preprogramming is not expressly taught by Wugofski, Straub teaches
`additional details of plug-ins.
`So, Slides 33-36 talk about the motivation to combine. Unless
`there’s additional questions on that, I’ll skip over that and move directly to
`the Kamada grounds.
`So, the Kamada grounds, again, there were three issues with the
`Kamada grounds. First issue is whether Kamada discloses the same display
`item assigned to the second program function.
`The second issue is whether Kamada discloses any program function
`at all. And we believe Patent Owner incorrectly argues that program
`functions must be program guide functions.
`Turning to Slide 38, the interpreting step is, interpreting the markup
`language document with the set-top box to determine that the markup
`language document assigns a second program function to the display item.
`So, turning to Slide 39 of Kamada. You’ll see, there’s an entry
`screen when you power on the box, it has a navigator. It comes out of the
`ROM. And then, as you select the navigator, you drop into a menu function.
`And in this case, by pressing 2, the number 2 is bound to the remote
`control. So, there’s a key bind function in HTML that binds 2 to the Menu
`2. So, HTML allows you to navigate menus, you have numbers associated
`with menu items.
`
`22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`If you hit the number 2, you implement the function associated with
`the navigator. You bring up an HTML document and that reassigns the
`function to that number 2 in the menu hierarchy.
`So, behind these screens is a menu hierarchy. It’s a data structure. It
`also includes key bind functions. So, in HTML documents at the time, you
`could go through and navigate through different menu screens.
`As you hit the same number 2 in those me
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
