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 IPR2017-00951
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, 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 IPR2017-00951
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`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. 1101, “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 re Certain Digital Video Receivers and
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`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
`IPR2017-00950 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. 1101, 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. 1101, 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`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. 1101, 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`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. 1101, 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`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. 1101, 12:23–29. In one example, the remote access and
`local interactive television program guides may be two different guides that
`communicate 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`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. 1101, 28:27–63.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`
`D. Prior Art References Relied Upon
`
`Comcast relies upon the prior art references set forth in the table
`below:
`Inventor1
`
`Relevant Dates
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Patent or
`Publication No.
`Humpleman U.S. Patent No.
`6,182,094 B1
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,805,763
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,104,334
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,408,435 B1
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,485,219
`PCT Int’l Pub. No.
`WO 97/18636
`Rzeszewski U.S. Patent No.
`5,699,125
`
`Lawler
`
`Allport
`
`Sato
`
`Woo
`
`Mizuno
`
`issued Jan. 30, 2001,
`filed June 24, 1998
`issued Sept. 8, 1998,
`filed May 5, 1995
`issued Aug. 15, 2000,
`filed Dec. 31, 1997
`issued June 18, 2002,
`filed April 29, 1997
`issued Jan. 16, 1996,
`filed April 18, 1994
`published May 22, 1997,
`filed Nov. 13, 1996
`issued Dec. 16, 1997,
`filed Mar. 31, 1995
`
`1106
`
`1109
`
`1110
`
`1115
`
`1116
`
`1117
`
`1118
`
`
`
`E. 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. 11–12, 20–65.
`
`
`1 For clarity and ease of reference, we only list the first named inventor.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`
`References
`Sato and Humpleman
`
`Sato, Humpleman, and Lawler
`Sato, Humpleman, and Allport
`Woo, Mizuno, and Rzeszewski
`
`Woo, Mizuno, Rzeszewski, and
`Lawler
`Woo, Mizuno, Rzeszewski, and
`Allport
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14,
`15, 17, and 18
`3, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19
`4
`1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14,
`15, 17, and 18
`3, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`4
`
`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);
`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
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`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. 7–10. 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. 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. 1101, 1:31–38;
`Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 32–34).
`Comcast then proceeds to differentiate between a “local interactive
`television program guide” and a “remote access interactive television
`program guide.” Pet. 15–16. 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
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`display of television program listings for use at the user premises.” Id. at 15
`(citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 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. 1102 ¶ 36).
`In response, Rovi merely reiterates Comcast’s construction of the
`claim term “interactive television program guide.” Prelim. Resp. 7–8. Rovi,
`however, contends that, to the extent the claim terms “local interactive
`television program guide” and “remote access interactive television program
`guide” require further construction, these claim terms refer to “an
`[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. at 8 (citing Ex. 1101, 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
`constructions for the claim terms “local interactive television program
`guide” and “remote access interactive television program guide” because
`they are vague and confusing, as well as not based on the intrinsic record.
`Id. at 8–9.
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`“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. 1101, 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. 7–8. Instead, Rovi merely proposes alternative constructions
`for the claim terms “local interactive television program guide” and “remote
`access interactive television program guide” 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
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`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 Grp., 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
`component[s]’ of the patented invention.” (alteration in original) (quoting
`Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004))). 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. 1101,
`12:34–37 (“In 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 . . .
`herein.”), 20:18–23 (“The remote access [interactive television] program
`guide may . . . send audio, graphical, and text messages to the local
`interactive [television] program guide for playing or display 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
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`“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. Obviousness Over the Combined Teachings of Sato and Humpleman
`
`Comcast contends that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and
`
`18 of the ’263 patent are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combined
`teachings of Sato and Humpleman. Pet. 20–36. 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. 1102 ¶¶ 104–161. At this stage of the
`proceeding, we are persuaded by Comcast’s explanations and supporting
`evidence.
`
`We begin our analysis with the principles of law that generally apply
`to a ground based on obviousness, followed by brief overviews of Sato and
`Humpleman, and then we address the parties’ contentions with respect to the
`claims at issue in this asserted ground.
`
`1. 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
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`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
`the art;2 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 this asserted ground based on obviousness with the
`principles identified above in mind.
`
`2. Sato Overview
`
`Sato generally relates to a remote controller suitable for use in
`operating audio/visual devices and, in particular, one that is suitable for use
`in a system for transmitting broadcast program reservation tables through a
`computer network. Ex. 1115, 1:7–12. Figure 1, reproduced below,
`illustrates a block diagram of the network system used in Sato. Id. at 2:61–
`62, 3:49–51.
`
`
`2 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. 13–14 (citing
`Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 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.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`
`
`The network system illustrated in Figure 1 reproduced above includes
`surface wave television (“TV”) broadcasting station 1, satellite TV
`broadcasting station 2, and frequency modulation (“FM”) radio broadcasting
`station 3 that broadcast TV programs and/or FM radio programs to
`audio/visual equipment 5. Id. at 3:51–4:1. Audio/video equipment 5
`includes, among other things, video tape recorder/player 11 and TV receiver
`14, each of which is capable of being controlled remotely by infrared
`signals. Id. at 4:1–9. The network system further includes personal
`computer 21 connected to Internet 6. Id. at 4:46–47. Personal computer 21
`sends commands to interface box 25, which, in turn, uses infrared signals to
`communicate desired modes of operation to VTR 11 and TV receiver 14. Id.
`at 4:52–59.
`Figure 17, reproduced below, illustrates one embodiment in
`accordance with the present invention. Ex. 1115, 3:44–45, 9:29–30.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`
`
`The embodiment illustrated in Figure 17 reproduced above includes TV
`receiver 101 that is capable of being set to a desired mode of operation using
`infrared signals from interface box 104 connected to personal computer 105.
`Id. at 9:30–36. This embodiment further includes external portable
`computer 107, which connects to personal computer 105 through Internet
`106 to control TV receiver 101. Id. at 9:51–54. For instance, external
`portable computer 107 generates hypertext commands for setting TV
`receiver 101 to a desired mode operation. Id. at 9:56–59. The hypertext
`commands are sent from external portable computer 107 to personal
`computer 105 through Internet 106. Id. at 9:56–61. When interface box 104
`receives the hypertext commands, it issues an infrared signal corresponding
`to the command contained in the hypertext and, subsequently, sets TV
`receiver 101 to the desired mode of operation. Id. at 9:61–65.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`
`3. Humpleman Overview
`
`Humpleman generally relates to the field of networks and, in
`particular, to home networks that have multi-media devices connected
`thereto. Ex. 1106, 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. According to Humpleman, a user may customize the programming
`information that is displayed by the program guide. Id. at 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.
`4. Claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 173
`In its Petition, Comcast contends that Sato’s program guide system
`accounts for most of the limitations recited in independent claims 1, 5, 8, 11,
`14, and 17, except “user profiles” used to generate the “remote access
`interactive television program guide.” Pet. 20–24 (citing Ex. 1115, 4:51–59,
`5:18–25, 9:51–65, Figs. 1, 17; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 104–107); see also id. at 27–35
`(arguing the same). Comcast turns to Humpleman’s generation of local
`customized program guides to teach this particular limitation. Id. at 24–25
`(citing Ex. 1106, 22:30–46; Ex. 1102 ¶ 108); see also id. at 31–32 (arguing
`
`3 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. 11–28, 33–41 (treating independent claims 1,
`5, 8, 11, 14, and 17 as standing or falling together).
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`the same). Comcast then argues that it would have been obvious to one of
`ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Humpleman’s generation of local
`customized program guides into Sato’s program guide system for at least the
`following three reasons: (1) it would have been nothing more than using
`known techniques (i.e., Humpleman’s remote display of local customized
`program guide pages) to improve a similar device (i.e., Sato’s program guide
`system) in the same way; (2) it would have been a simple substitution of
`Humpleman’s generation of local customized program guides for Sato’s web
`pages to produce the predictable result of preventing the display of
`disfavored channels or content; and (3) using Humpleman’s generation of
`local customized program guides to improve Sato’s program guide system—
`specifically, its web pages—would provide a complete picture of the content
`available on the user’s local television receiver. Id. at 25–26 (citing
`Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 111–114); see also id. at 32–33 (arguing the same).
`In its Preliminary Response, Rovi presents a number of arguments
`that can be grouped as follows: (1) whether Comcast has demonstrated that
`Sato and Humpleman, either alone or in combination, account for all the
`limitations recited in independent claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17; and
`(2) whether Comcast has demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have combined the teachings of Sato and Humpleman. Prelim.
`Resp. 11–20, 22–31. We address these groupings of arguments in turn.
`a. Limitations
`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. 11–13. Rovi argues that
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`Comcast fails to identify any explicit disclosures in Sato that account for the
`claimed “local and remote access interactive television program guides.” Id.
`at 13. Rather, Rovi argues that Comcast simply identifies Sato’s browsers
`that operate on personal computer 105 and external portable computer 107
`without explaining how these browsers satisfy its proposed construction of
`“interactive television program guide.” Id. at 14. In particular, Rovi asserts
`that neither Comcast nor its declarant, Dr. Tjaden, explains adequately how
`Sato’s browsers amount to control software, much less how these browsers
`navigate through program listings. Id. at 15 (citing Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1102
`¶ 106).
`On the current record, we are not persuaded by Rovi’s argument with
`respect to Sato’s browsers operating on personal computer 105 and external
`portable computer 107. In its Petition, Comcast argues that Sato discloses
`methods for controlling VTR 11 and TV receiver 14 that involve using
`program guide web pages displayed on personal computer 21 to schedule
`recordings. Pet. 23 (Ex. 1115, 5:18–25, 5:45–54, Fig. 2; Ex. 1102 ¶ 105).
`Comcast further argues that, because Sato’s external portable computer 107
`is capable of controlling the same home devices, a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have understood that external portable computer 107 presents a
`program guide web page that allows the remote user to select a program for
`recording because this is how Sato’s program guide system receives
`selections of programs. Id. (citing Ex. 1115, 5:18–25, 9:51–65); see also id.
`at 29 (arguing the same). Comcast then proceeds to explain how each of
`Sato’s browsers that operate on personal computer 105 and external portable
`computer 107 satisfy its proposed construction of “interactive television
`program guide” because these browsers display and execute hypertext
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`markup language (“HTML”) code that generates a display of program
`listings, and allows a user to navigate through the listings, make selections,
`and schedule a recording on local equipment. Id. at 23–24 (citing Ex. 1115,
`5:8–25; Ex. 1102 ¶ 106).
`In our claim construction section above, we adopted Comcast’s
`proposed construction of an “interactive television program guide” 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.” See supra Section II.A.
`In light of the arguments noted above, we are persuaded that Sato’s browsers
`operating on personal computer 105 and external portable computer 107
`comport with this construction. We also are persuaded that Comcast has
`presented sufficient evidence that would support a finding that Sato’s
`browsers operating on personal computer 105 and external portable
`computer 107, when displaying program guide web pages, amount to the
`“local and remote access interactive television program guides,”
`respectively.
`Rovi further contends that, even assuming arguendo that Sato teaches
`the claimed “local and remote access interactive television program guides,”
`Comcast does not provide evidence to support a finding that Sato’s
`purported guides communicate with each other, as is required by the
`independent claims. Prelim. Resp. 15–16. Rovi argues that, at best,
`Comcast identifies communications between Sato’s browser on external
`portable computer 107 and its personal computer 105 connected to interface
`box 104, but fails to provide any evidence suggesting that the browser
`operating on external portable computer 107 communicates with the browser
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00951
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`operating on personal computer 105. Id. at 16–17 (citing Pet. 34–35). Rovi
`also frames Comcast’s reliance on the supporting testimony of Dr. Tjaden
`re
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
