Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 11
`
`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 IPR2017-00952
`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. 11
`
`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 IPR2017-00952
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00952
`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. 1201, “the ’263 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent
`Owner, Rovi Guides, Inc. (“Rovi”), filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6
`(“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 (“ITC”) styled In re Certain Digital Video Receivers and
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00952
`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 IPR2017-00951). 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. 1201, 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. 1201, 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00952
`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. 1201, 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00952
`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. 1201, 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00952
`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. 1201, 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00952
`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. 1201, 28:27–63.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00952
`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.
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,163,316
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,805,763
`PCT Int’l Pub. No.
`WO 98/10589
`
`Killian
`
`Lawler
`
`Blake2
`
`
`
`issued Dec. 19, 2000,
`filed Oct. 3, 1997
`issued Sept. 8, 1998,
`filed May 5, 1995
`published Mar. 12, 1998,
`filed Sept. 2, 1997
`
`1208
`
`1209
`
`1222
`
`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. 15, 23–53.
`References
`Blake and Killian
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`
`Challenged Claims
`1, 2, 4–6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14,
`15, 17, and 18
`3, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19
`
`Blake, Killian, and Lawler
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`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 For clarity and ease of reference, we only list the first named inventor.
`2 Blake incorporates by reference U.S. Patent No. 4,706,121 B1 (Ex. 1223,
`“Young”).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00952
`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. 18–21. 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. 9–12. 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. 18. Relying
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00952
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`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. 1201, 1:31–38;
`Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 32–34).
`Comcast then proceeds to differentiate between a “local interactive
`television program guide” and a “remote access interactive television
`program guide.” Pet. 18–19. 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 18
`(emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 1202 ¶ 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 19 (emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 1202 ¶ 36).
`In response, Rovi merely reiterates Comcast’s construction of the
`claim term “interactive television program guide.” Prelim. Resp. 9. 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
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00952
`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. at 9 (citing Ex. 1201, 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 9–10.
`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. 1201, 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. 9. Instead, Rovi merely proposes alternative constructions for
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00952
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`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
`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. 1201,
`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 . . .
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00952
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`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
`“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 Blake 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 Blake and Killian. Pet. 23–51. 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. 1202 ¶¶ 94–193. At this stage of the
`proceeding, we are persuaded by Comcast’s explanations and supporting
`evidence.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00952
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`We begin our analysis with the principles of law that generally apply
`
`to a ground based on obviousness, followed by brief overviews of Blake and
`Killian, 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
`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;3 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.
`
`
`3 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. 17 (citing Ex. 1202
`¶¶ 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00952
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`
`2. Blake Overview
`
`Blake generally relates to a television schedule system with enhanced
`recording capability. Ex. 1222, 1:17–19. Blake specifically describes the
`enhanced recording capability with reference to Figures 12 and 13. Id. at
`16:11–18:29.
`Figure 12 of Blake is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 12 of Blake illustrates an example of a television schedule guide that
`provides television schedule information in a grid-like display on a
`television screen. Ex. 1222, 16:12–14. Through a user interface, a user may
`scroll through the television schedule information and may tune to a
`program by highlighting and selecting a program displayed in the guide. Id.
`at 16:17–19. Also, the user may select one or more programs for automatic,
`unattended recording. Id. at 16:17–19, 16:22–25. Peripheral devices––
`which may be televisions, VCRs, or set-top boxes––store time and channel
`information entries for programs to be recorded. Id. at 4:28–30, 16:26–28.
`Blake incorporates by reference the entirety of Young. Ex. 1222, 2:3–
`5. Blake presents Young as background information and describes it in
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00952
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`similar terms to that of Figure 12––namely, Blake states that Young
`discloses a system that provides television schedule information on a user’s
`television screen, and allows for user selection of programs and the
`automatic, unattended recording of programs that are listed in the television
`schedule information. Id. at 1:23–24, 1:27–30.
`
`Figure 13 of Blake is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 13 of Blake illustrates an arrangement for scheduling recordings from
`a remote location. Ex. 1222, 4:5–6. According to Blake, the user’s ability to
`schedule recordings from a remote location enhances the recording
`capability of the schedule guide. Id. at 17:1–2. In Figure 13, a user who is
`away from home employs input device 332 to access and communicably
`connect to central processing system 334. Id. at 17:3–5. Input device 332
`may be any device capable of transmitting data from a remote location,
`including a personal or laptop computer or cellular telephone. Id. at 17:5–8.
`Recording device 336 may be a VCR or any device with video and/or audio
`recording capabilities. Id. at 17:19–21.
`
`Input device 332 transmits user input in one of several forms,
`including: a code; channel, date, time, and length information; the title; or
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00952
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`theme data. Ex. 1222, Claims 4–7, 17:8–10, 17:15–16, 17:25–26, 18:1–2.
`Where the input information is theme data, the user first chooses to select a
`program to record by themes. Ex. 1222, 18:5–7. For example, if the user
`wishes to record the Chicago Bulls v. Los Angeles Lakers game, the user
`selects sports when presented with a list of theme selections, and further
`selects basketball. Id. at 18:5–8. The user is presented with a list of
`basketball games that are either being played or are scheduled to be played,
`and then selects the Bulls v. Lakers game. Id. at 18:8–10. Alternatively, the
`user may enter “Bulls,” and processing system 334 will present a list of
`Bulls games, and the user may select one or more of the games to record. Id.
`at 18:10–12. The input data are received by processing system 334, which
`stores the information and activates recording device 336 to record the
`program at the appropriate time. Id. Claim 1, 17:10–19, 17:29–30, 18:12–
`16.
`
`3. Killian Overview
`
`Killian generally relates to an electronic programming guide that
`operates on a computing platform using information from the Internet for
`display on a television. Ex. 1208, 2:1–3, 3:18–23. Killian uses viewer
`profiles to generate a preferred programming schedule that allows viewers to
`more intelligently select programs that may be desirable for viewing or
`recording. Id. at 10:61–66. Each viewer associated with a television
`receiver may generate a viewer profile for storage in a database, and the
`database may include an arrangement of information at one or more
`locations that are integral to or separate from the television receiver. Id. at
`9:10–25. The preferred schedule that is generated according to the user
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00952
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`profile indicates the desirability of a particular program relative to other
`programs. Id. at 2:11–12.
`
`4. Claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17
`
`In its Petition, Comcast contends that Blake’s television schedule
`system accounts for each of the limitations recited in independent claims 1,
`5, 8, 11, 14, and 17. Pet. 23–27 (citing Ex. 1222, 4:24–30, 17:1–21, 18:1–
`16, Figs. 12–13); see also id. at 32–48 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 116–117, 127);
`id. at 54–63 (showing correspondence among the limitations in the
`independent claims). For instance, Comcast relies on Blake’s illustration of
`a television schedule guide in Figure 12 as an example of a display
`generated by a “local interactive television program guide.” Id. at 26, 34.
`Comcast also relies on Blake’s input device 332 as a “mobile device” (id. at
`27, 39), and the ability of the user in Blake to select a program to record
`according to themes, which allows for navigating program listings and
`making program selections, as establishing a “remote access interactive
`television program guide” (id. at 27–28, 37–38).
`Comcast also presents alternative arguments to the extent Blake does
`not disclose a variety of claim limitations. Pet. 28–30, 38–40 (“remote
`access interactive television program guide”); id. at 30–31, 42–43 (“user
`profile”); id. at 33 (“Internet communications path”); id. at 46–47 (“local
`interactive television program guide”). For instance, Comcast relies on
`Killian for a disclosure of a “user profile.” Id. at 15, 30–31, 42–43. Here,
`Comcast argues that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`the art to implement Killian’s user profile data in Blake’s remote user
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00952
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`interface to better track a user’s preferences and generate more effective user
`interfaces that better identify desired content. Id. at 31, 42–43.
`In its Preliminary Response, Rovi presents a number of arguments
`that can be grouped as follows: (1) whether Comcast has demonstrated that
`Blake and Killian, 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 Blake and Killian. Prelim. Resp. 12–
`34.
`
`a. Limitations
`First, Rovi contends that Blake does not disclose “a remote access
`interactive television program guide.” Prelim. Resp. 14–16, 21–24. Rovi’s
`position is that Comcast concedes that Blake does not expressly disclose this
`limitation and that users of its television schedule system do not engage a
`remote interactive television program guide, but instead enter “a
`predetermined program code,” the “starting time, ending time, channel, date,
`and time information,” or the “title of the program” directly into the input
`device to designate which program to record. Id. at 14–15 (quoting
`Ex. 1222, 17:8–26, 18:17–23). In addition, Rovi argues that Blake does not
`disclose controlling functions of software as required by the claim
`construction of “interactive television program guide,” but instead discloses
`controlling home recording equipment. Id. at 15–16. Rovi also contends
`that Comcast fails to identify where the purported remote access interactive
`television program guide taught by Blake is implemented. Id. at 22.
`Second, according to Rovi, there is no evidence that the purported
`remote access interactive television program guide taught by Blake is in
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00952
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`“communication . . . [with] the local interactive television program guide.”
`Prelim. Resp. 16–19, 25–29. Rovi states that it never took a position before
`the ITC that Blake’s central processing system 334 is part of Blake’s local
`interactive television program guide. Id. at 16–17. Further, Rovi argues that
`the Petition does not provide any basis for establishing that Blake’s central
`processing system 334 is part of the local interactive television program
`guide. Id. at 17–18, 25–28. In addition, Rovi contends that whether Blake’s
`central processing system 334 forwards requests to local equipment is
`irrelevant to determining how the remote access interactive television
`program guide would transmit information to the local interactive program
`guide. Id. at 18–19, 28.
`We first address the limitation of a “remote access interactive
`television program guide,” and then we turn to the limitation of the remote
`access interactive television program guide’s “communication . . . [with] the
`local interactive television program guide.”
`i.
`“remote access interactive television program guide”
`We do not view Comcast’s position as conceding that Blake does not
`expressly disclose a “remote access interactive program guide.” In making
`this assertion, Rovi refers us to a section of the Petition where Comcast is
`making an alternative argument to the extent Blake does not disclose that
`input device 332 uses an interactive television program guide. Prelim. Resp.
`14 (citing Pet. 38); Pet. 38. We understand Comcast’s primary argument,
`however, to be that Blake teaches a “remote access interactive television
`program guide” because it discloses allowing a user to select a program to
`record according to themes. See Pet. 27–28, 37–38. In this embodiment of
`Blake, the user enters input into a device at a remote location (i.e., input
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00952
`Patent 8,006,263 B2
`
`device 332) and the input is in the form of theme data. Ex. 1222, Claims 1,
`6, 18:1–12. Blake specifically illustrates this embodiment by an example in
`which the user first selects to record a program by themes, then selects
`sports, then basketball, at which time the user is presented with a list of
`basketball games, and the user selects the game to be recorded. Id. at 18:5–
`10. On this record, we agree with Comcast that the disclosure of this user
`interface is sufficient to show the presence of a “remote access interactive
`television program guide.”
`In arguing that Blake does not disclose a user’s engagement with a
`“remote access interactive television program guide,” Rovi ignores this
`disclosure in Blake and instead focuses on other embodiments where the
`user input is (i) a code, (ii) channel, date, time, and length information, or
`(iii) the title. Prelim. Resp. 15. Be
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
