Paper 9
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: October 16, 2017
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROVI TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”), filed a
`
`Petition for inter partes review of claims 34, 48–69, 73, and 75 of U.S.
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: October 16, 2017
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROVI TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”), filed a
`
`Petition for inter partes review of claims 34, 48–69, 73, and 75 of U.S.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`
`Patent No. 6,725,281 B1 (Ex. 1101, “the ’281 patent”).1 Paper 2 (“Pet.”).
`
`Patent Owner, Rovi Technologies Corp. (“Rovi”), filed a Preliminary
`
`Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is
`
`authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and
`
`any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`
`the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Having
`
`considered the Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude the
`
`information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Comcast would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of
`
`the challenged claims of the ’281 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`According to the parties, the ’281 patent has been asserted in Rovi
`
`Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Corp., No. 2:16-cv-00321 (E.D. Tex.), which has
`
`been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
`
`York and is now pending as Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Corp., No. 1:16-
`
`cv-09278 (S.D.N.Y.). Pet. 2; Paper 3, 2. The parties also state that the
`
`’281 patent was at issue in Comcast Corp. v. Rovi Corp., No. 1:16-cv-03852
`
`(S.D.N.Y.), but that all claims related to the ’281 patent in that proceeding
`
`have been dismissed without prejudice. Pet. 2; Paper 3, 3; Paper 7, 2. The
`
`’281 patent also was asserted in Microsoft Corp. v. TiVo, Inc., No. 5:10-cv-
`
`00240-LHK (N.D. Cal.), which closed on March 22, 2012. Pet. 2–3,
`
`
`
`1 All of the claims challenged by Comcast in this Petition were added during
`reexamination of the ’281 patent. See Exs. 1101, 1126. All references to
`those claims in this Decision are to the claims as issued in Reexamination
`Certificate US 6,725,281 C1. See Exs. 1101, 1126.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`
`Paper 3, 3. In addition, the ’281 patent was the subject of Ex Parte
`
`Reexamination No. 90/011,541, in which a reexamination certificate issued
`
`on October 26, 2012. Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1126); Paper 3, 4.
`
`In addition to this Petition, Comcast filed six other petitions
`
`challenging the patentability of claims of the ’281 patent (Cases IPR2017-
`
`00988, IPR2017-00990, IPR2017-00991, IPR2017-00992, IPR2017-00993,
`
`and IPR2017-00994). Pet. 3; Paper 3, 2. Comcast also filed other petitions
`
`challenging the patentability of certain subsets of claims in several other
`
`patents owned by Rovi.
`
`B. The ’281 Patent
`
`The ’281 patent, titled “Synchronization of Controlled Device State
`
`Using State Table and Eventing in Data-Driven Remote Device Control
`
`Model,” issued April 20, 2004, from U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 09/432,853, filed on November 2, 1999. Ex. 1101, at [54], [45], [21],
`
`[22]. The ’281 patent also claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application
`
`No. 60/139,137, filed on June 11, 1999, and U.S. Provisional Application
`
`No. 60/160,235, filed on October 18, 1999. Id. at [60].
`
`The ’281 patent generally relates to dynamic connectivity among
`
`distributed devices and services and, in particular, to providing the capability
`
`to access device-specific or service-specific operational information to
`
`perform remote automation and control of embedded computing devices
`
`using a data-driven remote programming model. Id. at 1:13–19. The
`
`’281 patent discloses that, in many conventional scenarios, pervasive
`
`networked computing involves ad hoc remote control of the operational
`
`functionality of various devices from a single device with user data
`
`input/output capabilities. Id. at 1:52–55. In these scenarios, it is desirable to
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`
`share the user interface experience of a controlled device’s physical control
`
`panel with a user interface-capable controller device. Id. at 1:61–65.
`
`The ’281 patent purportedly accomplishes this by allowing controlled
`
`devices in a device control model to maintain a state table representative of
`
`their operational states. Id. at 1:66–2:1. Devices that provide a user
`
`interface or a user control point for the controlled device obtain a copy of the
`
`controlled device’s state table. Id. at 2:1–3. These user control point
`
`devices subscribe to notifications of state table changes, such that whenever
`
`there is a change to its operational state, the controlled device updates its
`
`local copy of the state table and notifies all user control point devices using
`
`an eventing model. Id. at 2:7–16. This synchronization of the operational
`
`state of a controlled device among all user control point devices that provide
`
`a user interface to the controlled device allows a user to interact
`
`appropriately with the current state of the controlled device (e.g., by
`
`“avoiding issuing a ‘toggle power on/off’ command when the controlled
`
`device’s power already is on”). Id. at 2:24–32. The ’281 patent also
`
`discloses that a user control point obtains (1) presentation data that define
`
`the presentation of the remote user interface of each controlled device, and
`
`(2) device control protocol data that define commands and protocols
`
`affecting control over each controlled device. Id. at 2:1–7.
`
`Figures 1 and 2, reproduced below, illustrate block diagrams of a
`
`device architecture per Universal Plug and Play (“UPnP”) using user control
`
`points, controlled devices, and bridges for connectivity between the user
`
`control points and controlled devices. Id. at 2:54–57.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`
`
`
`As shown in Figures 1 and 2 reproduced above, device architecture 100
`
`includes User Control Points 104 and 105, Controlled Devices 106 and 107,
`
`and Bridge 120. Id. at 12:47–50. The functionality of these components can
`
`be packaged into physical entities (e.g., multiple function devices 102 and
`
`103) in any combination. Id. at 12:52–55. Controlled Devices 106 and 107
`
`are responsible for storing the state of Services, whereas User Control Points
`
`104 and 105 synchronize to the state on the Controlled Devices and share
`
`each state directly among themselves. Id. at 12:61–64. Each Controlled
`
`Device 106 and 107 stores its current state of Service in Service State Table
`
`(“SST”) 230 (illustrated in Figure 3). Id. at 12:57–63.
`
`According to the ’281 patent, SST 230 may be used to represent the
`
`operational mode of the device or act as an information source or sink. Id. at
`
`13:61–63, 16:47–49. For instance, the SST of VCR 254 (illustrated in
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`
`Figure 4) could represent the current transport mode, tuner channel
`
`selection, input and output switch selections, audio and video decoding
`
`format, and current timer program. Id. at 13:63–66.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Challenged claims 34, 48, 73, and 75, all of which were added during
`
`reexamination of the ’281 patent, are independent. Claims 34 and 73 are
`
`each directed to a distributed computing network having at least one
`
`computing device. Claims 48 and 75 are each directed to a peer networking
`
`state eventing and control protocol method for effecting state-concurrent
`
`multi-master control of a controlled computing device. Claims 49–69
`
`depend directly or indirectly from claim 48. Claim 73 is illustrative of the
`
`subject matter of the challenged claims:
`
`73. A distributed computing network having at least one
`computing device,
`the distributed computing network
`comprising:
`
`a controlled computing device;
`
`a state table maintained by the controlled computing
`device and representing an operational state of the controlled
`computing device;
`
`a user controller device having user input/output capability
`for a user perceptible device control interface for remote user
`interaction with the controlled computing device to effect a
`change in the operational state of the controlled computing
`device represented in the state table;
`
`a user control point module in the user controller device
`operating to obtain a copy of the state table of the user controlled
`device and subscribe to change notifications of the state table;
`and
`
`an event source module in the controlled computing
`device operating according to an eventing model to distribute the
`change notifications to any subscribing user controller device
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`
`upon a change to the state table representing the operational state
`of the controlled computing device, wherein the change
`notifications represent the respective change in the state table, so
`as to thereby synchronize the user perceptible device control
`interface with the changed operational state among said any
`subscribing user controller device,
`
`wherein the state table represents a tuner channel
`selection, an audio decoding format, or a video decoding format.
`
`Ex. 1001, Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, 7:55–8:17 (formatting
`modified).
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Comcast asserts that claims 34, 48–69, 73, and 75 of the ’281 patent
`
`are unpatentable based on the following grounds:
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Ludtke ’2412
`
`Ludtke ’241 and Dara-Abrams3
`Ludtke ’241 and Chikarmane4
`Ludtke ’241 and Bouton5
`Ludtke ’241 and Naughton6
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`48–54, 56, 58–64, 67–69,
`73, and 75
`55
`
`34 and 57
`
`65
`
`66
`
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,148,241, filed July 1, 1998, issued Nov. 14, 2000
`(Ex. 1102, “Ludtke ’241”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,456,892 B1, filed Oct. 30, 1998, issued Sept. 24, 2002
`(Ex. 1105, “Dara-Abrams”).
`4 Vineet Chikarmane et al., Multicast Support for Mobile Hosts Using
`Mobile IP: Design Issues and Proposed Architecture, 3 MOBILE NETWORKS
`AND APPLICATIONS 365 (1998) (Ex. 1106, “Chikarmane”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 5,551,701, filed Jan. 5, 1994, issued Sept. 3, 1996
`(Ex. 1107, “Bouton”).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 6,020,881, filed Feb. 18, 1997, issued Feb. 1, 2000
`(Ex. 1108, “Naughton”).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction 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, 2144–46 (2016)
`
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard).
`
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire patent
`
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). An inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is different from
`
`its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the specification with
`
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`Comcast proposes constructions for several claim limitations. Pet. 5–
`
`10. In response, Rovi contends that Comcast improperly construes certain
`
`claim terms. Prelim. Resp. 9–15. For purposes of this Decision, we
`
`determine the only claim phrase requiring construction is “a state table . . .
`
`representing an operational state of the controlled computing device,” and
`
`only to the extent necessary to resolve the dispositive issue discussed
`
`below—namely, whether Ludtke ’241 properly accounts for this particular
`
`limitation. 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).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`
`In its Petition, Comcast contends that the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the claim phrase “a state table . . . representing an
`
`operational state of the controlled computing device” is “a data structure
`
`regarding the current state of a device.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1112 ¶ 61). To
`
`support its proposed construction, Comcast directs us to multiple disclosures
`
`in the specification of the ’281 patent, including its description of
`
`Device/Service State Table (“DST/SST”) 230 as “a table of rows having
`
`values that represent[] the current electrical, mechanical, and/or logical state
`
`of a controlled device.” Id. (citing Ex. 1101, 8:53–56, 16:12–18, 28:41–43,
`
`Fig. 3 (item 230)).
`
`In response, Rovi contends that the plain language of the claim phrase
`
`“a state table . . . representing an operational state of the controlled
`
`computing device” requires the following: (1) the claimed “state table” must
`
`be a table, which requires at least an addressable data structure of rows and
`
`columns—not just any form of data structure (e.g., not a record, a field in a
`
`record, a linked list, a stack, etc.); and (2) the contents of the claimed “state
`
`table” must represent the operational state of the controlled computing
`
`device. Prelim. Resp. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1101, 2:2–7, 2:29–32, 8:53–56,
`
`16:11–56). According to Rovi, Comcast’s proposed construction ignores
`
`both requirements. Id. at 12. Rovi argues that Comcast’s use of the term
`
`“data structure” in its proposed construction ignores the requirement that the
`
`claimed “state table” is, indeed, a table. Id. Rovi also disagrees with
`
`Comcast’s assertion that its proposed construction may be satisfied by any
`
`information that describes the physical controls of a target device. Id. (citing
`
`Pet. 12, 29, 31). Rovi asserts information that merely describes the physical
`
`status or appearance of a control object (e.g., whether or not a button has
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`
`been pressed) or display of an interface, tells us little, if anything, about the
`
`underlying operational state of the controlled device. Id. at 12–13.
`
`The parties’ dispute regarding the claim phrase “a state table . . .
`
`representing an operational state of the controlled computing device” turns,
`
`at least in part, on the scope and meaning of the term “state table.” In the
`
`specification of the ’281 patent, the terms SST and DST are used
`
`interchangeably to describe item 230 illustrated in Figure 3 (i.e., a state
`
`table). Compare Ex. 1101, 13:57–60, with id. at 28:41–49. The
`
`specification explicitly defines an SST as “[a] logical table consisting of
`
`rows of [Variable, Type, Legal Values, Default Value, Current Value] that
`
`represents the current electrical, mechanical, and/or logical state of a
`
`Service.” Id. at 8:53–56. By identifying the term SST among the list of
`
`terms discussed following the statement “[t]he detailed description that
`
`follows uses the terminology defined below” (id. at 6:20–21 (emphasis
`
`added)), the specification sets forth an explicit definition for the term SST
`
`with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`
`at 1480.
`
`Notably, nothing in the specification of the ’281 patent contradicts the
`
`definition of the term SST identified above or suggests another meaning for
`
`the term. For instance, the specification discloses that “SST layouts are
`
`logically specified in terms of rows of [Variable, Type, Legal Values,
`
`Default Value]. The actual instances of a SST would also include a Current
`
`Value field in every row.” Ex. 1101, 14:37–40. The specification also
`
`discloses the following:
`
`[An SST] logically consists of rows of: Variable, Type, Legal
`Values, Default Value, Current Value[.] Although entries of the
`[SST] in UPnP consist of these five items, the state table
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`
`alternatively can contain fewer or additional items. Generally,
`each entry will minimally consist of a Variable name or
`identifier, and its current value.
`
`Id. at 16:12–18. According to the specification, representing Services in this
`
`way “ensure[s] that the state of a Service is easily available in a common
`
`way to multiple User Control Points.” Id. at 16:44–46.
`
`Based on the specification of the ’281 patent, we determine for
`
`purposes of this Decision that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claim term “state table” is “a logical table consisting of rows of at least a
`
`variable identifier and a current value that represent the current electrical,
`
`mechanical, and/or logical state of a service or device,” which is consistent
`
`with the explicit definition of the term SST and other descriptions of a state
`
`table in the specification. We further clarify that, based on the plain
`
`language of independent claims 34, 48, 73, and 75, the claimed “state table”
`
`includes content that “represent[s] an operational state of the controlled
`
`computing device.”
`
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`
`the art;7 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 obviousness grounds with these
`
`principles in mind.
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness over Ludtke ’241
`
`Comcast contends that claims 48–54, 56, 58–64, 67–69, 73, and 75 of
`
`the ’281 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`
`Ludtke ’241. Pet. 26–57. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Andrew
`
`Lippman, Comcast alleges that Ludtke ’241 teaches or suggests the subject
`
`matter of the challenged claims. Id. (citing Ex. 1112 ¶¶ 69–146). On this
`
`record, we are not persuaded that Comcast demonstrates that Ludtke ’241
`
`properly accounts for “a state table . . . representing an operational state of
`
`the controlled computing device,” as recited in each of independent claims
`
`48, 73, and 75. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed below, Comcast has
`
`not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this ground.
`
`1. Overview of Ludtke ’241
`
`Ludtke ’241 generally relates to the field of consumer electronics and,
`
`in particular, to providing user interfaces for networked electronic devices,
`
`including remote devices. Ex. 1102, at [57], 1:9–12. Ludtke ’241 discloses
`
`that a panel subunit allows a target device to describe its physical
`
`
`
`7 Relying upon the testimony of Dr. Lippman, Comcast offers an assessment
`as to the level of skill in the art as of June 11, 1999, which is the earliest
`effective filing date on the face of the ’281 patent. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1112
`¶ 23). To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept
`the assessment offered by Comcast as it is consistent with the ’281 patent
`and the asserted prior art.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`
`appearance, such as controls, displays, etc., to a local or remote intelligent
`
`controller device. Id. at 4:64–5:1. The intelligent controller then generates a
`
`user interface for the target device that includes interactive controls and user
`
`display information pertinent to the target device. Id. at 5:1–4. The panel
`
`subunit permits the remote intelligent controller to trigger actions on the
`
`target device just as if a user physically manipulated the controls of the
`
`target device itself. Id. at 5:4–7. According to Ludtke ’241, because the
`
`target device automatically handles all issues, including state transitions and
`
`inter-control dependencies, “[t]he present invention removes all
`
`requirements for items such as state transition tables and their execution
`
`environment.” Id. at 5:31–36.
`
`In one embodiment, Ludtke ’241 discloses an exemplary target device
`
`(e.g., video cassette recorder (“VCR”) 12) that includes panel subunit 314
`
`stored in the computer readable memory units of the target device. Id. at
`
`8:57–58, 8:67–9:4, Fig. 4. Panel subunit 314 is “a collection of data
`
`structures called ‘descriptors’ that describe the physical controls on the
`
`target device (e.g., the control panel).” Id. at 9:8–10. These data descriptor
`
`data structures are illustrated in Figures 5–8 and 11. Id. at 11:17–20.
`
`In one example, as shown in Figure 5 of Ludtke ’241, reproduced
`
`below, panel subunit 314 includes identifier descriptor data structure 340.
`
`Id. at 4:22–26, 11:20–22.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 5 above illustrates a hierarchy in which identifier descriptor data
`
`structure 340 contains, for example, identifier (e.g., pointer) 342, which
`
`relates to the front panel of a VCR and points to secondary identifier
`
`descriptor list 350, which in turn contains identifiers 356 and 358 pointing to
`
`descriptor lists 356a and 358a. Id. at 11:22–54. Descriptor lists 356a and
`
`358a describe different portions of the VCR’s front panel and contain
`
`control objects. Id. at 11:54–59. Exemplary control objects 382 and 384
`
`contain information representing a liquid crystal display (“LCD”) panel and
`
`a push button, respectively. Id. at 13:16–17, 14:25–27. Figures 7A and 7B
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`
`of Ludtke ’241 show the specific information contained in control objects
`
`382 and 384. Id. at 13:1–15:9.
`
`In another example of a data descriptor data structure, Figure 8 of
`
`Ludtke ’241, reproduced below, illustrates panel subunit status descriptor
`
`500. Id. at 4:33–34, 15:17.
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 8 above, panel subunit status descriptor 500 includes the
`
`current state for every control object defined for a particular panel subunit in
`
`accordance with the invention disclosed in Ludtke ’241. Id. at 15:19–24. In
`
`particular, panel subunit status descriptor 500 includes the following two
`
`main areas: (1) area 510 that contains general status information for the
`
`panel subunit, and (2) a separate area that defines each of the control list
`
`hierarchies and includes information such as the current state of a control
`
`object (e.g., whether a button is being pressed) and the current value of a
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`
`control object (e.g., text displayed by an LCD panel). Id. at 15:31–39. For
`
`example, pointer 512 points to status list 535, which includes a status field
`
`for each control object defined for the front panel of the VCR. Id. at 15:53–
`
`56.
`
`2. Analysis
`
`Independent claims 48, 73, and 75 each recite “a state table . . .
`
`representing an operational state of the controlled computing device.”
`
`Comcast’s arguments with respect to this limitation are virtually the same
`
`for all three claims. See Pet. 27–30, 43–46, 49–52. For convenience, our
`
`analysis below cites to Comcast’s arguments presented with respect to
`
`claim 48, which Rovi also references in the Preliminary Response.
`
`Comcast asserts that Ludtke ’241 discloses a panel subunit that is a
`
`collection of data structures describing the physical controls of a target
`
`device such as VCR 12. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1102, 9:8–10; Ex. 1112 ¶¶ 70–
`
`72). Comcast refers to Figure 5 of Ludtke ’241 as showing “the overall
`
`structure of the panel subunit 314 for VCR 12,” and Figures 7A and 7B as
`
`showing specific details for control objects 382 and 384. Id. at 27–28 (citing
`
`Ex. 1102, 11:15–38, 13:16–14:55). Comcast also refers to Figure 8 of
`
`Ludtke ’241 as showing a status descriptor data structure that is maintained
`
`by the target device and represents the current status of each control object
`
`described in the panel subunit. Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1102, 10:39–41, 15:17–
`
`39, 15:50–6:9; Ex. 1112 ¶¶ 71–72).
`
`Comcast then argues that “Ludtke ’241 expressly shows the data
`
`structure in the form of a ‘table.’ A [person having ordinary skill in the art]
`
`at the time of the alleged invention would have understood that this table
`
`shows the state of the target device.” Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1112 ¶ 73).
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`
`Comcast further argues that “[t]he format of the representation of the state
`
`data is a matter of programming style” and a “[person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art] at the time of the alleged invention would have understood that
`
`the design of the state table is a matter of design choice to organize the status
`
`information for ease of use.” Id. (citing Ex. 1112 ¶ 73). In addition,
`
`Comcast contends that a “[person having ordinary skill in the art] would . . .
`
`have understood that any data structure format would work in the same way
`
`as a table with rows and column values with no unexpected results.” Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 1112 ¶ 73). Therefore, according to Comcast, “a [person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art] would have found it obvious to use any data
`
`structure format that maintains the same operational state information of the
`
`controlled device, such as the status descriptor data structure found in
`
`Ludtke ’241.” Id. (citing Ex. 1112 ¶ 73).
`
`On this record, we are not persuaded Comcast has shown that
`
`Ludtke ’241 teaches or suggests “a state table . . . representing an
`
`operational state of the controlled computing device,” as recited in claim 48.
`
`As an initial matter, we agree with Rovi that Comcast does not clearly
`
`identify the disclosure in Ludtke ’241 it alleges corresponds to the recited
`
`“state table” limitation, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). See Prelim.
`
`Resp. 16–17. As discussed above, Comcast first cites Figure 5, which
`
`illustrates subunit panel 314 including identifier descriptor data
`
`structure 340, along with panel descriptor lists and control object
`
`descriptors, further detailed in Figures 7A and 7B. Pet. 27–28. Comcast
`
`then cites Figure 8, which illustrates status descriptor data structure 500.
`
`Id. at 29. When the Petition states that “Ludtke ’241 expressly shows the
`
`data structure in the form of a ‘table’” (Pet. 30), it fails to specify whether
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`
`the data structure to which it refers is, for example, the identifier descriptor
`
`data structure in Figure 5 or the status descriptor data structure in Figure 8.
`
`See Prelim. Resp. 17. Other evidence and argument presented by Comcast
`
`appear to map the collection of data structures that comprise panel
`
`subunit 314 to the recited “state table.” For example, Dr. Lippman opines
`
`that “the Ludtke ’241 panel subunit status descriptor data structures, as
`
`shown in the Figures above [(i.e., Figures 5, 7A, 7B, and 8)] . . . meet this
`
`limitation.” Ex. 1112 ¶ 72.
`
`Regardless of which data structure or collection of data structures
`
`Comcast relies on for teaching “a state table . . . representing an operational
`
`state of the controlled computing device,” we agree with Rovi that
`
`Ludtke ’241 does not “expressly show[]” any of the data structures “in the
`
`form of a ‘table,’” as Comcast contends. See Prelim. Resp. 22 (citing
`
`Pet. 30). As explained above in Section II.A, we disagree with Comcast’s
`
`proposed construction of “state table” as simply “a data structure regarding
`
`the current state of a device.” Instead, we have construed the term “state
`
`table” for purposes of this Decision as “a logical table consisting of rows of
`
`at least a variable identifier and a current value that represent the current
`
`electrical, mechanical, and/or logical state of a service or device.” Under the
`
`proper construction, none of the data structures in Ludtke ’241 cited by
`
`Comcast (i.e., those in Figures 5, 7A, 7B, and 8), either individually or
`
`collectively, meet the claim limitation because they are not in the form of a
`
`logical table consisting of rows of at least a variable identifier and a current
`
`value.
`
`On the present record, we also agree with Rovi that Comcast’s other
`
`arguments are conclusory and do not establish that Ludtke ’241 renders
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`
`obvious “a state table . . . representing an operational state of the controlled
`
`computing device,” as recited in claim 48. See Prelim. Resp. 22–23 (citing
`
`Pet. 29–30). Comcast’s contention that the format of state data “is a matter
`
`of design choice to organize the status information for ease of use” does not
`
`support an obviousness conclusion because it fails to explain why a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have replaced any or all of Ludtke ’241’s
`
`hierarchical data structures with a state table containing rows and columns.
`
`See Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc., 636 F. App’x 575, 578 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (non-precedential) (“Merely stating that a particular placement of an
`
`element is a design choice does not make it obvious. [Petitioner] must offer
`
`a reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the
`
`specific design choice.”). Comcast’s argument that using a state table to
`
`represent an operational state of the controlled device is a matter of “design
`
`choice” is further undermined by explicit statements in Ludtke ’241 that its
`
`system eliminates the need for state tables. See Ex. 1102, 5:32–36 (“All
`
`issues such as state transitions and inter-control dependencies are handled
`
`automatically [by the] target device independently of the intelligent
`
`controller responsibility. The present invention removes all requirements for
`
`items such as state transition tables and their execution environment . . . .”);
`
`10:19–20 (“All concerns regarding the state transition . . . are handled inside
`
`of the target device.”); 17:30–31 (“In operation, the intelligent controller is
`
`not burdened with keeping state tables . . . .”). Notably, neither Comcast nor
`
`its declarant, Dr. Lippman, addresses these statements in Ludtke ’241. See
`
`Pet. 27–30; Ex. 1112 ¶¶ 70–73.
`
`We also are unpersuaded by Comcast’s contention that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that any data structure format
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00989
`Patent 6,725,281 B1
`
`would work in the same way as a table with rows and column values with no
`
`unexpected results and, therefore, would have found it obvious to use any
`
`data structure format that maintains the operational state information of the
`
`controlled device, such as the status descriptor data structure found in
`
`Ludtke ’241. See Pet. 30. For support, Comcast cites only Dr. Lippman’s
`
`declaration testimony, which is not supported with factual evidence and
`
`provides no analysis beyond the conclusory assertions in the Petition. See
`
`Ex. 1112 ¶ 73. Moreover, Comcast’s argument that it would have been
`
`obvious to use any data structure such as that disclosed in Ludtke ’241 does
`
`not address the relevant question for an obviousness analysis—namely,
`
`whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
`
`Ludtke ’241 to use a state table, as we have construed the term, rather than
`
`the specific data structures disclosed in Ludtke ’241.
`
`For these reasons, Comcast has not shown sufficiently that
`
`Ludtke ’241 accounts for “a state table . . . representing an operational state
`
`of the controlled computing device,” as recited in claim 48. As mentioned
`
`above, Com
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
