Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 12
`
`Entered: September 20, 2017
`
`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 IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 12
`
`Entered: September 20, 2017
`
`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 IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”), filed a
`Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–19 of U.S. Patent No.
`8,006,263 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ‘263 Patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent
`Owner, Rovi Guides, Inc. (“Rovi”), filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7
`(“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” Taking into account the arguments
`presented in Rovi’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information
`presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Comcast would prevail in challenging claims 1–19 of the ‘263 Patent as
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pursuant to § 314, we hereby
`institute an inter partes review as to these claims of the ‘263 Patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The ‘263 Patent is involved in the following district court cases:
`
`(1) Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Corp., No. 2:16-cv-00322 (E.D. Tex.),
`which has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
`District of New York and is pending as Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Corp.,
`No. 1:16-cv-09826 (S.D.N.Y.); and (2) Comcast Corp. v. Rovi Corp., No.
`1:16-cv-3852 (S.D.N.Y.). Pet. 1–2; Paper 4, 2. The ‘263 Patent also has
`been asserted against Comcast in a proceeding before the U.S. International
`Trade Commission styled In the Matter of Certain Digital Video Receivers
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`and Hardware and Software Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-1001. Pet.
`2; Paper 4, 2.
`In addition to this Petition, Comcast filed two other petitions
`challenging the patentability of claims 1–19 of the ‘263 Patent (Cases
`IPR2017-00951 and IPR2017-00952). Pet. 3; Paper 4, 2. Comcast also filed
`other petitions challenging the patentability of certain subsets of claims in
`several patents owned by Rovi. Pet. 3.
`
`B. The ‘263 Patent
`
`The ‘263 Patent, titled “Interactive Television Program Guide with
`Remote Access,” issued August 23, 2011, from U.S. Patent Application
`No. 11/246,392, filed on October 7, 2005. Ex. 1001, at [54], [45], [21], [22].
`The ‘263 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/927,814,
`filed on August 26, 2004, which, in turn, is a continuation of U.S. Patent
`Application No. 09/354,344, filed on July 16, 1999. Id. at [63]. The ‘263
`Patent also claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No.
`60/097,527, filed August 21, 1998, and U.S. Provisional Application No.
`60/093,292, filed on July 17, 1998. Id. at [60].
`The ‘263 Patent generally relates to interactive television program
`guide video systems and, in particular, to such systems that provide remote
`access to program guide functionality. Ex. 1001, 1:19–22. The ‘263 Patent
`discloses that conventional interactive television program guide systems
`typically are implemented on set-top boxes located in the home of a user
`and, as a result, do not permit the user to perform program guide functions
`without the user being physically located in the same room as these systems.
`Id. at 1:37–45. Stated differently, conventional interactive television
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`program guide systems require the user to be present in the home to access
`important program guide features, such as program reminders, parental
`controls, and program recording. Id. at 2:19–22. The ‘263 Patent
`purportedly addresses this and other problems by providing an interactive
`television program guide system that allows a user to access certain features
`of the program guide remotely and establish settings for those features. Id.
`at 2:23–28.
`Figure 1 of the ‘263 Patent, reproduced below, illustrates a schematic
`block diagram of the system in accordance with the present invention.
`Ex. 1001, 3:45–46, 4:29–30.
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 reproduced above, system 10 includes main facility 12
`that provides interactive television program guide data from program guide
`data source 14 to interactive television program guide equipment 17 via
`communication link 18. Id. at 4:29–33. Interactive television program
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`guide equipment 17 is connected to at least one remote program guide
`access device 24 via remote access link 19. Id. at 4:47–53.
`
`Figure 2a of the ‘263 Patent, reproduced below, illustrates one
`arrangement involving the interactive television program guide equipment
`17 and remote program guide access device 24 in accordance with the
`principles of the present invention. Ex. 1001, 3:47–50, 4:55–57.
`
`
`As shown in Figure 2a reproduced above, interactive television program
`guide equipment 17 includes program guide distribution equipment 21
`located at television distribution facility 16, which distributes program guide
`data to user television equipment 22 via communications path 20. Id. at
`4:57–67. Remote program guide access device 24 receives the program
`guide data, as well as any additional data necessary to access various
`functions of the interactive program guide, from user television equipment
`22 via remote access link 19. Id. at 5:29–39.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`
`In at least one embodiment, the ‘263 Patent discloses that a remote
`access interactive television program guide implemented on remote program
`guide access device 24 communicates with a local interactive television
`program guide implemented on interactive television program guide
`equipment 17. Ex. 1001, 12:23–29. In one example, the remote access and
`local interactive television program guides may be two different guides that
`communication with each other. Id. at 12:34–37; see also id. at 22:49–23:6
`(disclosing steps involved with using the remote access interactive television
`guide to provide program listing information to a user).
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17 are independent. Independent claims 1,
`
`8, and 14 are each directed to a system for selecting television programs
`over a remote access link that includes an Internet communications path for
`recording, whereas independent claims 5, 11, and 17 are each directed to a
`method for performing the same. Claims 2–4 directly depend from
`independent claim 1; claims 6 and 7 directly depend from independent claim
`5; claims 9 and 10 directly depend from independent claim 8; claims 12 and
`13 directly depend from independent claim 11; claims 15 and 16 directly
`depend from independent claim 14; and claims 18 and 19 directly depend
`from independent claim 17. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the
`challenged claims and is reproduced below:
`1.
`A system for selecting television programs over a
`remote access link comprising an Internet communications path
`for recording, comprising:
`a local interactive television program guide equipment on
`which a
`local
`interactive
`television program guide
`is
`implemented, wherein the local interactive television program
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`
`guide equipment includes user television equipment located
`within a user's home and the local interactive television program
`guide generates a display of one or more program listings for
`display on a display device at the user's home; and
`a remote program guide access device located outside of
`the user's home on which a remote access interactive television
`program guide is implemented, wherein the remote program
`guide access device is a mobile device, and wherein the remote
`access interactive television program guide:
`generates a display of a plurality of program listings for
`display on the remote program guide access device, wherein the
`display of the plurality of program listings is generated based on
`a user profile stored at a location remote from the remote
`program guide access device;
`receives a selection of a program listing of the plurality of
`program listings in the display, wherein the selection identifies a
`television program corresponding to the selected program listing
`for recording by the local interactive television program guide;
`and
`
`transmits a communication identifying the television
`program corresponding to the selected program listing from the
`remote access interactive television program guide to the local
`interactive
`television program guide over
`the
`Internet
`communications path;
`wherein the local interactive television program guide
`receives the communication and records the television program
`corresponding to the selected program listing responsive to the
`communication using the local interactive television program
`guide equipment.
`Ex. 1001, 28:27–63.
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Comcast challenges claims 1–19 of the ‘263 Patent based on the
`
`asserted grounds of unpatentability (“grounds”) set forth in the table below.
`Pet. 11–13, 20–75.
`References
`Humpleman1 and Killian2
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`Basis
`§ 103(a) 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14,
`15, 17, and 18
`Humpleman, Killian, and Lawler3 § 103(a) 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19
`Kondo,4 Killian, and Kawamura5 § 103(a) 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14,
`15, 17, and 18
`§ 103(a) 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19
`
`Kondo, Killian, and Kawamura,
`and Lawler
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review proceeding, claim terms of an unexpired
`patent are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 6,182,094 B1; issued Jan. 30, 2001 (Ex. 1006,
`“Humpleman”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,163,316, issued Dec. 19, 2000 (Ex. 1008, “Killian”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,805,763, issued Sept. 8, 1998 (Ex. 1009, “Lawler”).
`4 Japanese Pat. App. Pub. No. H10-155131, published June 9, 1998
`(Ex. 1011, “Kondo”). Comcast has provided a certified translation of Kondo
`from Japanese into English (Ex. 1012).
`5 Japanese Pat. App. Pub. No. H9-102827, published Apr. 15, 1997
`(Ex. 1013, “Kawamura”). Comcast has provided a certified translation of
`Kawamura from Japanese into English (Ex. 1014).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016)
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as the
`claim construction standard to be applied in an inter partes review
`proceeding). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and
`absent any special definitions, claim terms are generally given their ordinary
`and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
`the art, in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`In its Petition, Comcast proposes constructions for the following claim
`terms: (1) “local/remote access interactive television program guides” (all
`challenged claims); (2) “mobile device” (all challenged claims); (3) “user
`television equipment” (all challenged claims); and (4) “user profile” (all
`challenged claims). Pet. 14–17. In response, Rovi contends that Comcast
`improperly construes the following claim terms: (1) “local/remote access
`interactive television program guides”; and (2) “mobile device.” Prelim.
`Resp. 13–17. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that the only
`claim terms requiring construction are “local/remote access interactive
`television program guides,” and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`issues discussed below—namely, whether the grounds asserted by Comcast
`properly account for both a “local interactive television program guide” and
`a “remote access interactive television program guide.” See, e.g., Vivid
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`(explaining that only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be
`construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).
`In its Petition, Comcast contends that the claim term “interactive
`television program guide” is not defined in the ‘263 Patent. Pet. 14.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`Relying on the specification of the ‘263 Patent, as well as the supporting
`testimony of its declarant, Dr. Gary Tjaden, Comcast argues that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this claim term refers to
`“control software operative at least in part to generate a display of television
`program listings and allow a user to navigate through the listings, make
`selections, and control functions of the software.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001,
`1:31–38; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 32–34).
`Comcast then proceeds to differentiate between a “local interactive
`television program guide” and a “remote access interactive television
`program guide.” Pet. 14–16. Comcast argues that a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would have understood a “‘local interactive television program
`guide’ to refer to an [interactive television program guide] that generates a
`display of television program listings for use at the user premises.” Id. at 14
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 35). According to Comcast, the “local interactive
`television program guide” may be implemented, in part, on a server or other
`device outside the user’s home. Id. In contrast, Comcast argues that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood a “‘remote [access]
`interactive television program guide’ to refer to an [interactive television
`program guide] that generates a display of television program listings for use
`on a remote access device, such as a mobile device.” Id. at 16 (citing
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 36).
`In response, Rovi merely reiterates Comcast’s construction of the
`claim term “interactive television program guide.” Prelim. Resp. 14. Rovi,
`however, contends that, to the extent the claim terms “local interactive
`television program guide” and “remote access interactive television program
`guides” require further construction, these claim terms refer to “an
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`[interactive television program guide] that causes display of program
`information on user television equipment, and an [interactive television
`program guide] allowing navigation through television program listings
`using a remote access link[, respectively].” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:11–14,
`4:33–36, 6:61–64, 12:25–29, 14:11–18, 20:27–29, Figs. 2a–2d, 12–23).
`Rovi then argues that we should decline to adopt Comcast’s proposed
`construction for the claim terms “local interactive television program guide”
`and “remote access interactive television program guides” because they are
`vague and confusing, as well as not based on the intrinsic record. Id. at 14–
`15.
`
`As an initial matter, we agree with Comcast that the specification of
`the ’263 Patent does not disclose an explicit definition for the claim term
`“interactive television program guide.” We also agree with Comcast that, at
`this stage in the proceeding, an “interactive television program guide”
`should be construed as “control software operative at least in part to generate
`a display of television program listings and allow a user to navigate through
`the listings, make selections, and control functions of the software.” This
`construction is supported by the specification of the ‘263 Patent, particularly
`its disclosure of conventional interactive television program guides that
`display “various groups of television program guide listings . . . in
`predefined or user-defined categories,” and “allow the user to navigate
`through [the] television program listings” and make a selection “using a
`remote control.” Ex. 1001, 1:31–36.
`We do not understand Rovi to dispute Comcast’s proposed
`construction of the claim term “interactive television program guide.” See
`Prelim. Resp. 14. Instead, Rovi merely proposes alternative constructions
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`for the claim terms “local interactive television program guide” and “remote
`access interactive television program guides” that differ from the
`constructions proposed by Comcast insofar as (1) where the “local
`interactive television program guide” is displayed—be it at the user premises
`or on user television equipment; and (2) whether the “remote access
`interactive television program guide” generates program listings for use on a
`remote device or allows navigation of program listings using a remote access
`link. For purposes of this Decision, we need not assess the differences
`between the alternative constructions proposed by the parties in order to
`determine whether Comcast’s asserted grounds of patentability satisfy the
`“reasonable likelihood” threshold standard for institution of trial.
`We, however, take this opportunity to clarify that, based on the plain
`language of independent claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17, they indicate that the
`claim terms “local interactive television program guide” and “remote access
`interactive television program guide” are separately identifiable elements.
`See Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249,
`1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear
`implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct
`components’ of the patented invention.” (citation omitted)). Our
`determination in this regard is supported by the specification, which includes
`various embodiments that treat these claim terms as separately identifiable
`elements capable of communicating with each other. See, e.g., Ex. 1001,
`12:34–37 (disclosing that, “[i]n still another suitable approach, the [local
`interactive television program guide and remote access interactive television
`program guide] may be different guides that communicate in a manner or
`manners discussed . . . therein”); 20:18–23 (disclosing that “[t]he remote
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`access [interactive television] program guide may . . . send audio, graphical,
`and text messages to the local interactive [television] program guide for
`playing or displaying by user television equipment 22”).
`In summary, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation
`of the claim term “interactive television program guide” is “control software
`operative at least in part to generate a display of television program listings
`and allow a user to navigate through the listings, make selections, and
`control functions of the software.” We further clarify that the claim terms
`“local interactive television program guide” and “remote access interactive
`television program guide” are separately identifiable elements, and are not
`construed properly as reading on the same interactive television program
`guide.
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A claim is unpatentable under § 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 the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`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 skill in
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`the art;6 and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of non-obviousness
`(i.e., secondary considerations). Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
`18 (1966). We analyze the asserted grounds based on obviousness with the
`principles identified above in mind.
`
`C. Obviousness Over the Combined Teachings of Humpleman and Killian
`
`Comcast contends that claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and
`
`18 of the ‘263 Patent are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combined
`teachings of Humpleman and Killian. Pet. 20–42. Comcast explains how
`this proffered combination teaches or suggests the subject matter of each
`challenged claim, and provides reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in
`the art would have been prompted to modify or combine the references’
`respective teachings. Id. Comcast also relies upon the Declaration of Dr.
`Tjaden to support its positions. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93–185. At this stage of the
`proceeding, we are persuaded by Comcast’s explanations and supporting
`evidence.
`
`We begin our analysis with brief overviews of Humpleman and
`Killian, and then we address the parties’ contentions with respect to the
`claims at issue in this asserted ground.
`
`
`6 Relying upon the testimony of Dr. Tjaden, Comcast offers an assessment
`as to the level of skill in the art as of July 17, 1998, which is the earliest
`effective filing date on the face of the ‘263 Patent. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 27–29). To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we
`accept the assessment offered by Comcast as it is consistent with the ‘263
`Patent and the asserted prior art.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`
`1. Humpleman Overview
`
`Humpleman generally relates to the field of networks and, in
`particular, to home networks that have multi-media devices connected
`thereto. Ex. 1006, 1:16–18. One objective of Humpleman’s invention is to
`provide a method for controlling a plurality of devices connected to a home
`network, where at least one of these devices is a multi-media device, and for
`generating a program guide from the information provided by the multi-
`media device on a second device connected to the home network. Id. at
`2:23–28. The generated program guide may be a Hypertext Markup
`Language (“HTML”) page that allows for selection of a specific program for
`recording on local equipment. Id. at 20:31–51. That HTML version is
`generated by a digital satellite services interface device (“DSS”) that also
`displays a conventional electronic program guide. Id. at 22:21–59.
`Humpleman claims priority to and incorporates by reference (id. at.
`1:7–13) a provisional patent application (60/059,499; Ex. 1007), and
`provides further insight into the software structures disclosed. An annotated
`version of figure 13 of that provisional patent application is reproduced
`below:
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`
`
`The annotated version of the figure illustrates portions that Comcast argues
`correspond to different claimed portions, with the local guide software and
`its data in purple, remote guide files in orange, control software for local
`recording equipment in blue, and referencing remote guide equipment in red.
`Pet. 22. The provisional application also makes clear that a message is sent
`to the DSS control application by the remote device over the Internet based
`on a selection by the user in the HTML program guide, instructing it to
`control hardware to record the selected program. Ex. 1007, 2–3.
`According to Humpleman, a user may customize the programming
`information that is displayed by the program guide. Ex. 1006, 22:41–43.
`For instance, if a user prefers not to display the schedule for a particular
`channel because it contains inappropriate content, the user may request that
`the channel be removed from the program guide. Id. at 22:43–46. In
`addition, according to Humpleman, a user can remotely control devices
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`connected to the home network. Id. at 20:42–47. “For example, if a user is
`required to work late and is therefore unable to watch the Monday night
`football game, the user can program a [digital video cassette recorder
`(“DVCR”)] connected to their home network via the Internet, in order to
`record the particular event.” Id. at 20:47–51.
`
`2. Killian Overview
`
`Killian discloses an electronic programming guide (“EPG”) that
`operates on a JAVA-based computing platform associated with a television
`and a video recorder. Ex. 1008, at [57], 3:6–12, Fig. 1. A collection of
`application programming interfaces (“APIs”) allow the platform to support
`JAVA applets or applications that provide interactive television
`programming. Id. at 3:18–27. In one embodiment, the platform supports an
`EPG JAVA applet or application “that allows viewers to more intelligently
`select, schedule, and record viewing opportunities according to viewer
`profiles” and other information received via the Internet. Id. at 3:27–33.
`The EPG can use other platform components to cause the video recorder to
`record programs. Id. at 15:5–18.
`3.
`Claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 177
`In its Petition, Comcast contends that the person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have found it obvious to include interactive selection and
`control features in Humpleman’s guide software on the DSS, with some of
`
`
`7 Comcast contends that independent claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17 stand or
`fall together. Pet. 8–11. Rovi does not dispute Comcast’s assertion in this
`regard. Accord Prelim. Resp. 17–57 (treating independent claims 1, 5, 8, 11,
`14, and 17 as standing or falling together).
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`those associated functionalities already disclosed in the ‘263 Patent. Pet. 23
`(citing Ex. 1001, 1:27–38). Comcast also argues that such functionalities are
`disclosed in Killian, and those aspects would have been implemented in
`Humpleman’s system for several reasons. Id. at 23–25.
`First, Comcast argues that Humpleman expressly teaches that its home
`control system is interoperable with conventional hardware, and that a DSS
`loaded with Killian’s guide could and would be utilized in Humpleman’s
`system, because Humpleman was designed to be layered on top of existing
`hardware and software installations. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1002, ¶ 103).
`Second, Comcast argues that Killian expressly teaches that the EPG modules
`implementing the recording control APIs could be integral to the functioning
`of external devices other than the receiver, which would have provided
`greater utility to Humpleman’s network of remote devices. Id. at 24–25
`(citing Ex. 1008, 15:53–16:7; Ex. 1002, ¶ 104). Lastly, Comcast argues that
`combining Killian with Humpleman would be nothing more than using
`known techniques to improve similar devices and a simple substitution of
`one known, closely-related element for another that produces predictable
`results. Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 105–106).
`In its Preliminary Response, Rovi presents a number of arguments
`that can be grouped as follows: (1) whether Comcast can properly rely on
`the disclosure of Humpleman’s provisional application in the instant
`obviousness ground of unpatentability; (2) whether Comcast has
`demonstrated that Humpleman and Killian, either alone or in combination,
`account for all the limitations recited in independent claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14,
`and 17; and (3) whether Comcast has demonstrated that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Humpleman and
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`Killian. Prelim. Resp. 7–13, 17–24, 30–45. We address these groupings of
`arguments in turn.
`
`a. Humpleman’s Provisional Application
`Rovi contends that, with respect to grounds that rely, in part, on the
`teachings of Humpleman, the Humpleman provisional is not prior art. Rovi
`argues that Comcast has failed to identify the Humpleman provisional in its
`identification of the patents and printed publications relied upon for each
`ground, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2), and that the provisional application
`cannot be relied upon as valid prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Prelim.
`Resp. 7–12. Although Rovi is correct about the requirements placed on art
`applied in a petition, we are not persuaded that Comcast has relied upon or
`asserted the Humpleman provisional absent the Humpleman issued patent.
`Comcast does not assert the former without asserting the latter.
`Rovi also contends that the Humpleman provisional is not properly
`incorporated by reference into Humpleman. Prelim. Resp. 12–13. Rovi
`argues that Humpleman does not identify with particularity the specific
`material in the provisional applications asserted to be incorporated by
`reference or clearly indicate where that material is found in the incorporated
`applications, as required to incorporate material by reference. Id. (citing
`Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed.
`Cir. 2000); Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378-79
`(Fed. Cir. 2007)). We do not agree.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`
`The relevant section of Humpleman is reproduced below:
`This patent application claims priority from provisional patent
`application Ser. No. 60/050,762, filed on Jun. 25, 1997, entitled
`Home Network, Browser Based, Command and Control and
`provisional patent application Ser. No. 60/059,499, filed on Sep.
`22, 1997, entitled Improved Home Network, Browser Based,
`Command and Control, which are incorporated herein by
`reference.
`Ex. 1006, 1:7–13 (emphasis added). From this notification, we find the
`patentee in Humpleman incorporated the entireties of both provisional
`applications by reference. If the intent was to incorporate only one
`provisional or just part of one provisional, then we would agree that
`sufficient particularity has not been supplied. However, the normal
`interpretation of such an incorporation by reference clause is that all of the
`referenced provisional disclosures are incorporated. Similarly, there is no
`need to stipulate where particular material to be incorporated is found when
`that particular material is all.
`
`As such, we are not persuaded, as a matter of law, that Humpleman
`did not incorporate both provisional applications into its disclosure. Thus,
`we are persuaded that the Humpleman provisional can be relied upon for its
`disclosure, having been properly incorporated by reference according to 37
`C.F.R. § 1.57(c) into Humpleman.
`Limitations
`b.
`Rovi contends that each independent claim requires two interactive
`television program guides—namely, “a local interactive television program
`guide” and “a remote access interactive television program guide”—in
`communication with each other. Prelim. Resp. 17–19. Rovi argues that
`Comcast fails to identify any explicit disclosures in Humpleman that its
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`“local guide” and “remote guide” are interactive. Id. at 19. Rather, Rovi
`argues that the guides are disclosed as versions of a conventional EPG, and
`thus not interactive. Id. As well, Rovi asserts that, although Humpleman’s
`remote guide is asserted to allow users to navigate program listings, there is
`no evidence in the Petition that “the ‘conventional EPG’ implemented at the
`DSS device” is interactive or that the HTML guide is not simply used by all
`devices, including the DSS. Id. at 20, 33–34 (citing Pet. 14, 22–23).
`Additionally, Rovi asserts that nowhere does Humpleman disclose
`navigation through program listings. Id. at 20–21. We do not agree.
`Comcast has acknowledged that “Humpleman may not expressly
`disclose interactive selection and control features associated with its local
`and remote guides.” Pet. 23. It is for that reason that Comcast also cites
`Killian, such that any apparent deficiency in Humpleman can be cured.
`Rovi does not appear to dispute that Killian discloses an interactive program
`guide, with selection of programs from listings and response by a receiver to
`such a selection. As such, we are persuaded that the combination of
`Humpleman and Killian at least discloses the subject elements of
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
