`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 8
`
`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 IPR2017-01050
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01050
`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. 1201, “the ’413 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 1–18 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 (“ITC”) styled In re Certain Digital Video Receivers and
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01050
`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 IPR2017-01049). 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. 1201, 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. 1201, 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01050
`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. 1201, 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01050
`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. 1201, 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01050
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01050
`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. 1201, 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. 12–14, 21–61.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01050
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`
`References
`Blake1,2 and Killian 3
`Blake, Killian, and Lawler4
`
`Challenged Claims
`Basis
`§ 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
`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).
`
`
`1 PCT Int’l Pub. No. WO 98/10589; filed Sept. 2, 1997, published Mar. 12,
`1998 (Ex. 1222, “Blake”).
`2 Blake incorporates by reference U.S. Patent No. 4,706,121 (Ex. 1223,
`“Young”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,163,316; issued Dec. 19, 2000 (Ex. 1208, “Killian”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,805,763, issued Sept. 8, 1998 (Ex. 1209, “Lawler”).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01050
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`
`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. 15–18. 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 ’413 Patent. Pet. 15.
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01050
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`selections, and control functions of the software.” Id. (citing Ex. 1201,
`1:28–35; Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 32–35).
`Comcast then proceeds to differentiate between a “local interactive
`television program guide” and a “remote access interactive television
`program guide.” Pet. 16–17. 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 16
`(emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 1202 ¶ 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. 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
`17 (emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 1202 ¶ 37).
`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
`[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 9–10 (citing Ex. 1201,
`4:8–39, 11:63–12:7, 14:41–47, 15:9–32, 16:20–33, 25:52–59, Figs. 12–23).
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01050
`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 10–11.
`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. 1201, 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. 9. 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01050
`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. 1201, 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01050
`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 Blake and Killian
`
`Comcast contends that claims 1, 3–10, and 12–18 of the ’413 Patent
`
`are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Blake and
`Killian. Pet. 21–59. 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 ¶¶ 94–212. 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 Blake and
`Killian, and then we address the parties’ contentions with respect to the
`claims at issue in this asserted ground.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01050
`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;5 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. 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:
`
`
`5 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. 14–15 (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 ’413 Patent and the asserted prior art.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01050
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`
`
`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, 22–23. 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
`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:
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01050
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`
`
`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
`theme data. Ex. 1222, Claims 4–7, id. at 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. Id. at 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
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01050
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`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. at 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
`profile indicates the desirability of a particular program relative to other
`programs. Id. at 2:11–12.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01050
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`
`4. Claims 1 and 10
`
`In its Petition, Comcast contends that Blake’s television schedule
`system accounts for each of the limitations recited in independent claims 1
`and 10. Pet. 21–50 (citing Ex. 1222, 4:24–30, 17:1–21, 18:1–16, Figs. 12–
`13; Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 71–78, 86–88, 94–109, 114–117, 120–180); id. at 30–31
`(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 23–24. 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
`25–26).
`Comcast also presents alternative arguments to the extent Blake does
`not disclose a variety of claim limitations. Pet. 26–28 (“remote access
`interactive television program guide”); id. at 28–30 (“user profile”); id. at 32
`(“Internet communications path”); id. at 47–49 (“local interactive television
`program guide”). For instance, Comcast relies on Killian for a disclosure of
`a “user profile.” Id. at 28–30. 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 interface to better track a user’s preferences and
`generate more effective user interfaces that better identify desired content.
`Id.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Rovi presents a number of arguments
`that can be grouped as follows: (1) whether Comcast has demonstrated that
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01050
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`Blake and Killian, 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 Blake and Killian. Prelim. Resp. 13–33.
`a. Limitations
`First, Rovi contends that Blake does not disclose “a remote access
`interactive television program guide.” Prelim. Resp. 14–16, 21–23. 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 14–16 (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
`“communication . . . [with] the local interactive television program guide.”
`Prelim. Resp. 16–20, 24–30. 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
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01050
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`processing system 334 is part of the local interactive television program
`guide. Id. at 16–20, 25–30. 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.”
`“remote access interactive television program guide”
`i.
`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. 40). 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 device
`332) and the input is in the form of theme data. Ex. 1222, Claims 1, 7, id. at
`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–
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01050
`Patent 8,578,413 B2
`
`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. Because Rovi does not address the
`embodiment where the user input includes theme data, we are not persuaded
`by Rovi’s argument that Blake does not disclose a “remote access interactive
`television program guide.”
`Rovi further contends that Comcast does not establish how Blake’s
`remote user interface allows a user to “control functions of the software” as
`required by the claim construction of “interactive television program guide.”
`Prelim. Resp. 15–16, 21–22. Here, Rovi draws a distinction between
`“soft