Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 9
`
`Entered: October 18, 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 IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 9
`
`Entered: October 18, 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 IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”), filed a
`Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent No.
`8,578,413 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’413 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 1–18 of the ’413 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 ’413 Patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The ’413 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-03852 (S.D.N.Y). Pet. 1–2; Paper 3, 2. The ’413 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`Hardware and Software Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-1001. Pet. 2;
`Paper 3, 2.
`In addition to this Petition, Comcast filed two other petitions
`challenging the patentability of claims 1–18 of the ’413 Patent (Cases
`IPR2017-01048 and IPR2017-01050). Pet. 3; Paper 3, 2. Comcast also filed
`other petitions challenging the patentability of certain subsets of claims in
`several patents owned by Rovi. Pet. 3.
`
`B. The ’413 Patent
`
`The ’413 Patent, titled “Interactive Television Program Guide with
`Remote Access,” issued November 5, 2013, from U.S. Patent Application
`No. 13/275,565, filed on October 18, 2011. Ex. 1101, at [54], [45], [21],
`[22]. The ’413 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 ’413 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 ’413 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, 1:16–19. The ’413 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 1:34–42. Stated differently, conventional interactive television
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 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 2:16–19. The ’413 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 2:20–25.
`Figure 1 of the ’413 Patent, reproduced below, illustrates a schematic
`block diagram of the system in accordance with the present invention.
`Ex. 1101, 7:15–39.
`
`
`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 7:15–22. Interactive television program
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`guide equipment 17 is connected to at least one remote program guide
`access device 24 via remote access link 19. Id. at 7:33–35.
`
`Figure 2a of the ’413 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, 8:16–34.
`
`
`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
`7:40–53. 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 8:21–26, 9:4–6.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`
`In at least one embodiment, the ’413 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. Id. at 15:9–18. In one example, the remote access and local
`interactive television program guides may be two different guides that
`communication with each other. Id. at 15:20–23; see also id. at 25:35–59
`(disclosing steps involved with using the remote access interactive television
`guide to provide program listing information to a user).
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Independent claim 1 is directed to a
`
`system for selecting television programs over a remote access link that
`includes an Internet communications path for recording, whereas
`independent 10 is directed to a method for performing the same. Claims 2–9
`depend from independent claim 1, and claims 11–18 depend from
`independent claim 10. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the challenged
`claims and is reproduced below:
`1.
`A system for selecting a television program over a
`remote access link comprising an Internet communications path
`for recording, the system comprising:
`a local interactive television program guide equipment on
`which a local interactive television program guide is
`implemented, wherein the local interactive television
`program guide generates a display of one or more
`television program listings for display on a display device
`at a user's home, wherein the local interactive television
`program guide equipment is located within the user's home
`and includes user television equipment, wherein a mobile
`device communicates with the local interactive television
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`
`program guide equipment, wherein the mobile device, on
`which a remote access interactive television program
`guide is implemented, is located outside of the user's
`home, and wherein the mobile device:
`generates a display of the remote access interactive television
`program guide, the remote access interactive television
`program guide comprising a plurality of television
`program listings for display on the mobile device, wherein
`the display of the remote access interactive television
`program guide is generated based on a user profile stored
`at a location remote from the mobile device;
`receives a user selection of the television program for
`recording by the local interactive television program
`guide, wherein the user selects the television program by
`selecting a television program listing from the plurality of
`television program listings displayed, by the remote access
`interactive television program guide, on the mobile
`device; and
`transmits, to the local interactive television program guide
`over the Internet communications path, a communication
`identifying
`the
`television program
`for
`recording
`corresponding to the television program listing selected by
`the user with the remote access interactive television
`program guide,
`wherein the local interactive television program guide
`receives the communication and, responsive to the
`communication,
`records
`the
`television
`program
`corresponding to the selected television program listing
`using the local interactive television program guide
`equipment.
`Ex. 1101, 40:6–47.
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Comcast challenges claims 1–18 of the ’413 Patent based on the
`
`asserted grounds of unpatentability (“grounds”) set forth in the table below.
`Pet. 10–12, 20–72.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`
`References
`Sato1 and Humpleman2
`Sato, Humpleman, and Lawler3
`Woo, 4 Mizuno, 5 and Rzeszewski6
`Woo, Mizuno, Rzeszewski, and
`Lawler
`
`Challenged Claims
`Basis
`§ 103(a) 1, 3–10, and 12–18
`§ 103(a) 2 and 11
`§ 103(a) 1, 3–10, and 12–18
`§ 103(a) 2 and 11
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 6,408,435 B1; issued June 18, 2002 (Ex. 1115, “Sato”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,182,094 B1; issued Jan. 30, 2001 (Ex. 1106,
`“Humpleman”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,805,763, issued Sept. 8, 1998 (Ex. 1109, “Lawler”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,485,219, issued Jan. 16, 1996 (Ex. 1116, “Woo”).
`5 PCT Int’l Pub. No. WO 97/18636, published May 22, 1997 (Ex. 1117,
`“Mizuno”).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,699,125, issued Dec. 16, 1997 (Ex. 1118, “Rzeszewski”).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`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. 13–17. 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. 8–11. 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 ’413 Patent. Pet. 14.
`Relying on the specification of the ’413 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
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`selections, and control functions of the software.” Id. (citing Ex. 1101,
`1:28–35; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 32–35).
`Comcast then proceeds to differentiate between a “local interactive
`television program guide” and a “remote access interactive television
`program guide.” Pet. 14–15. Comcast argues that a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would have understood a “‘local interactive television program
`guide’ to refer to an [interactive television program guide] that generates a
`display of television program listings for use at the user premises.” Id. at 14
`(citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 36). 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. at 15. In contrast, Comcast argues that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood a “‘remote [access]
`interactive television program guide’ is 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 15 (citing Ex. 1102
`¶ 37).
`
`In response, Rovi merely reiterates Comcast’s construction of the
`claim term “interactive television program guide.” Prelim. Resp. 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 8–9 (citing Ex. 1101, 4:8–
`39, 11:63–12:7, 14:41–47, 15:9–32, 16:20–33, 25:52–59, Figs. 12–23).
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`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 ’413 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 ’413 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, 1:28–33.
`We do not understand Rovi to dispute Comcast’s proposed
`construction of the claim term “interactive television program guide.” See
`Prelim. Resp. 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
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`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 and 10, 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, 15:20–23
`(“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.”), 23:4–9 (“The remote access [interactive television] program guide
`may . . . send audio, graphical, and text messages to the local interactive
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`[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 Sato and Humpleman
`
`Comcast contends that claims 1, 3–10, and 12–18 of the ’413 Patent
`
`are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Sato and
`Humpleman. Pet. 20–41. 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 ¶¶ 97–169. 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.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`
`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;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 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.
`
`
`7 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 ’413 Patent. Pet. 13 (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 ’413
`Patent and the asserted prior art.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 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.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 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.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 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 and 108
`In its Petition, Comcast contends that Sato’s program guide system
`accounts for most of the limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 10,
`except “user profiles” used to generate the “remote access interactive
`television program guide.” Pet. 20–24 (citing Ex. 1115, 4:41–59, 5:18–25,
`45–54, 9:8–17, 51–65, Figs. 1, 2, 17; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 97–100); 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 ¶ 102); see also id. at 31–32
`
`8 Comcast contends that independent claims 1 and 10 stand or fall together,
`along with their dependent claims. Pet. 9–10. Rovi does not dispute
`Comcast’s assertion in this regard. Accord Prelim. Resp. 11–19, 23–29, 33–
`38 (treating independent claims 1 and 10 as standing or falling together).
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`(arguing 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
`24–26 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 105–108); 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 and 10; 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. 11–19, 23–
`30, 33–37. 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
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`communication with each other. Prelim. Resp. 11–13. Rovi argues that
`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; Ex. 1102 ¶ 100).
`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. 21 (citing Ex. 1115, 5:18–25, 5:45–54, Fig. 2; Ex. 1102 ¶
`97). 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. at 21 (citing Ex. 1115, 5:18–25, 9:51–
`65); see also id. at 29–30 (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
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`execute hypertext 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 (citing
`Ex. 1115, 5:8–25; Ex. 1102 ¶ 100).
`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
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01049
`Patent 8,578,413 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
`regarding how Sato’s personal computer 105 necessarily includes control
`software, such as a browser, as one of inherency in an obviousness analysis
`that lacks support, and asserts that his testimony in this regard is insufficient
`as a matter of law. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 153).
`On the current record, we are not persuaded by Rovi’s argument that
`Sato’s browsers operating on personal computer 105 and external portable
`computer 107 do not communicate with each other. In its Petition, Comcast
`argues that, when the user selects a program to be recorded using the
`program guide web page displayed on Sato’s external portable computer
`107, this computer sends hypertext commands to personal computer 105 via
`Internet 106. Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1115, 9:56–65). According
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
