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 IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 36
`
`Entered: October 15, 2018
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 36
`
`Entered: October 15, 2018
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”), filed a
`Petition for inter partes review of claims 1–54 of U.S. Patent No. 8,046,801
`B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’801 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Rovi
`Guides, Inc. (“Rovi”), filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”). Taking into account the arguments presented in Rovi’s Preliminary
`Response, we determined that the information presented in the Petition
`established that there was a reasonable likelihood that Comcast would
`prevail in challenging claims 1–54 of the ’801 patent as unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pursuant to § 314, we instituted this inter partes review
`on October 18, 2017, as to all of the challenged claims, but not all the
`grounds presented by Comcast in its Petition. Paper 9 (“Dec. on Inst.”).
`During the course of trial, Rovi filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper
`15, “PO Resp.”), and Comcast filed a Reply to the Patent Owner Response
`(Paper 26, “Pet. Reply”). A consolidated oral hearing with related Cases
`IPR2017-00950, IPR2017-00951, IPR2017-00952, IPR2017-01048,
`IPR2017-01049, IPR2017-01050, IPR2017-01065, and IPR2017-01143 was
`held on June 19, 2018, and a transcript of the hearing is included in the
`record. Paper 35 (“Tr.”).
`After all substantive briefing was complete, but before the
`consolidated oral hearing, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a decision to
`institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims
`challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60
`(2018). Following SAS, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“Office”)
`issued “Guidance on the impact of SAS on AIA trial proceedings,” in which
`the Office took the policy position that a decision granting institution will
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`institute on all of the challenged claims in the petition and all the grounds
`presented in the petition.1 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`has since endorsed this Office policy by explaining that “‘the petitioner’s
`petition, not the Director’s discretion, is supposed to guide the life of the
`litigation’ and ‘that the petitioner’s contentions, not the Director’s discretion
`define the scope of the litigation all the way from institution through to
`conclusion.’” Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 894, F.3d 1256, 1258 (Fed. Cir.
`2018) (quoting SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1356–1357). In accordance with SAS and
`Office policy, we issued an Order modifying our Decision on Institution
`entered on October 18, 2017, to include review of all challenged claims and
`all grounds presented by Comcast in its Petition. Paper 32. The parties,
`however, agreed to waive briefing on the grounds we declined to institute in
`the Decision on Institution. Id. The parties also agreed to waive
`consideration of these previously non-instituted grounds at the consolidated
`oral hearing. Id.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This decision is a Final
`Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of
`claims 1–54 of the ’801 patent. For the reasons discussed below, we hold
`that Comcast has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
`these claims are unpatentable under § 103(a).
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The ’801 patent is involved in the following district court cases:
`(1) Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Corp., No. 2:16-cv-00322 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`1 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/patentsapplication-process/patent-trial-
`and-appeal-board/trials/guidance-impactsas-aia-trial.
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`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-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 ’801 patent has
`also been asserted against Comcast in a proceeding before the U.S.
`International Trade Commission (“ITC”) styled In re Certain Digital Video
`Receivers and Hardware and Software Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-
`1001 (Int’l Trade Comm’n). Pet. 2; Paper 3, 2.
`In addition to this Petition, Comcast filed two other petitions
`challenging the patentability of claims 1–54 of the ’801 patent (Cases
`IPR2017-001065 and IPR2017-01143), as well as petitions challenging
`related patents. Pet. 3; Paper 3, 2.
`
`B. The ’801 Patent
`
`The ’801 patent, titled “Interactive Television Program Guide with
`Remote Access,” issued October 25, 2011, from U.S. Patent Application
`No. 10/927,814, filed on August 26, 2004. Ex. 1101, at [54], [45], [21],
`[22]. The ’801 patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.
`09/354,344, filed on July 16, 1999. Id. at [63]. The ’801 patent also claims
`the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/097,527, filed on August
`21, 1998, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/093,292, filed on July 17,
`1998. Id. at [60].
`The ’801 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 ’801 patent
`discloses that conventional interactive television program guide systems
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`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
`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 ’801 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 ’801 patent, reproduced below, illustrates a schematic
`block diagram of the system in accordance with the present invention. Id. at
`5:35–36, 7:15–16.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`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
`communications link 18. Id. at 7:16–19. Interactive television program
`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 ’801 patent, reproduced below, illustrates one
`arrangement involving interactive television program guide equipment 17
`and remote program guide access device 24 in accordance with the
`principles of the present invention. Id. at 5:37–40, 7:40–43.
`
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`data to user television equipment 22 via communications path 20. Id. at
`7:44–53. 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 8:15–26.
`In at least one embodiment, the ’801 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 15:9–15. In one example, the remote access and local
`interactive television program guides may be two different guides that
`communicate 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
`program guide to provide program listing information to a user). In another
`example, the remote access and local interactive television program guides
`may be the same guide, but compiled to run on two different platforms. Id.
`at 15:15–18.
`The ’801 patent discloses transferring program guide information and
`settings between remote program guide access device 24 and interactive
`television program guide equipment 17 using any suitable application layer
`protocol. Ex. 1101, 15:60–64. For example, if remote access link 19 is an
`Internet link, program guide functionality may be accessed using Hypertext
`Transfer Protocol. Id. at 15:64–66. Remote program guide access device 24
`and interactive television program guide equipment 17 also may transfer
`program guide information as files using either File Transfer Protocol or
`Trivial File Transfer Protocol running over a Transmission Control
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`Protocol/Internet Protocol stack. Id. at 15:66–16:4. The ’801 patent makes
`clear that “[a]ny suitable file transfer protocol based on any suitable protocol
`stack may be used.” Id. at 16:4–5.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1, 5, 10, 15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 are independent.
`Claims 1, 5, 19, 23, 37, and 41 recite methods, and claims 10, 15, 28, 33, 46,
`and 51 recite systems. Claims 2–4 directly depend from independent claim
`1; claims 6–9 directly depend from independent claim 5; claims 11–14
`directly depend from independent claim 10; claims 16–18 directly depend
`from independent claim 15; claims 20–22 directly depend from independent
`claim 19; claims 24–27 directly depend from independent claim 23; claims
`29–32 depend directly from independent claim 28; claims 34–36 depend
`directly from independent claim 33; claims 38–40 depend directly from
`independent claim 37; claims 42–45 depend directly from independent claim
`41; claims 47–50 depend directly from independent claim 46; and claims
`52–54 depend directly from independent claim 51.
`Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the
`challenged claims and is reproduced below:
`1. A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the
`method comprising:
`generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a
`remote device, a display comprising a plurality of program
`listings for display on the remote device, wherein the display is
`generated by the remote guide based on program guide
`information received from a local guide implemented on user
`equipment via the Internet, wherein the user equipment is remote
`to the remote device, wherein the user equipment is located at a
`user site, and wherein the local guide generates a display of one
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`
`or more program listings for display on a display device at the
`user site;
`receiving, with the remote guide, a user selection of a
`program listing from the plurality of program listings, wherein
`the user selection identifies a program corresponding to the
`selected program listing for recording by the local guide;
`transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to
`the local guide identifying the program corresponding to the
`selected program listing via the Internet;
`receiving the communication with the local guide; and
`responsive to the communication, scheduling, with the
`local guide, the program corresponding to the selected program
`listing for recording by the user equipment.
`Ex. 1101, 40:6–30.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Comcast relies upon the following prior art references:
`Inventor2
`Patent or
`Relevant Dates
`Publication No.
`Humpleman U.S. Patent No.
`6,182,094 B1
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,408,435 B1
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,485,219
`PCT Int’l Pub. No.
`WO 97/18636
`
`issued Jan. 30, 2001,
`filed June 24, 1998
`issued June 18, 2002,
`filed April 29, 1997
`issued Jan. 16, 1996,
`filed Apr. 18, 1994
`published May 22, 1997,
`filed Nov. 13, 1996
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1106
`
`1115
`
`1116
`
`1117
`
`Sato
`
`Woo
`
`Mizuno
`
`
`
`
`2 For clarity and ease of reference, we only list the first named inventor.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`
`E. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted a trial based on the asserted grounds of unpatentability
`(“grounds”) set forth in the table below. Dec. on Inst. 33; Paper 32.
`
`References
`Sato and Humpleman
`Woo and Mizuno
`
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Challenged Claims
`1–54
`1–54
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`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).
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and absent any
`special definitions, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`art, in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`In the Decision on Institution, we determined that the only claim
`terms requiring construction are “guide” and “electronic program guide” and
`only to the extent necessary to resolve whether the grounds asserted by
`Comcast properly accounted for both a “guide” and “electronic program
`guide.” Dec. on Inst. 9; 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). Upon reviewing the parties’ preliminary
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`arguments and evidence, we determined that the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of the claim terms “guide” and “electronic program guide” in
`the context of the challenged claims is “software operative at least in part to
`generate a display of television program listings,” and we agreed with
`Comcast that the terms “guide” and “electronic program guide” are not
`limited to interactive guides. Id. at 11. We further clarified that the claim
`terms “local guide” and “remote guide” are separately identifiable elements,
`and are not construed properly as reading on the same guide. Id. at 11–12.
`We have reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence as to the
`proper construction of “guide” as recited in the challenged claims, and we
`are not persuaded to change our preliminary construction to require that such
`guides be construed as “interactive” guides, as Rovi contends. We note,
`however, that at the oral hearing, Comcast contended that this distinction
`does not make a difference because it has shown interactive guides are
`taught by the prior art references. Hearing Tr. 8:25–9:13. Thus, we discuss
`below the construction of “guide” and “electronic program guide,” but we
`also consider, in the context of Petitioner’s challenges, whether Petitioner
`has adequately supported its challenges if the recited guides were limited to
`interactive guides.
`In its Patent Owner Response, Rovi contends that “the proper
`construction for ‘guide’ should be an interactive program guide as claimed
`in related patents, Nos. 8,006,263 (‘’263 patent’) and 8,578,413 (‘’413
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`patent’).” PO Resp. 8. Rovi does not appear to otherwise dispute our
`preliminary construction in the Decision on Institution.3
`As to interactivity, Rovi contends such a construction is consistent
`with the intrinsic evidence, including the language of claim 1 (“requiring
`that the guide be capable of receiving a user selection, transmitting a
`communication, and scheduling a program for recording”), the ’801 patent’s
`title (“Interactive Television Program Guide with Remote Access”), and the
`specification’s references to “interactive” guides that “allow navigation
`through program listings and cause display of program listings.” Id. at 8–9.
`As we discussed in our Decision on Institution, we are not persuaded
`that reading “interactive” into the claims is consistent with the intrinsic
`evidence. First and foremost, we start with the language of the claims. See
`In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“the name of the
`game is the claim”). The term “interactive” does not appear in the claims of
`the ’801 patent. Instead, those claims use the terms “remote guide,” “local
`guide,” and “electronic program guide.” While we agree with Rovi that
`certain interactive features are recited in the claims, we need not construe
`“remote guide,” “local guide,” and “electronic program guide” to take those
`recitations into account because they are already recited in the claims
`themselves. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1237 (Fed.
`
`
`3 For the first time at the oral hearing, Rovi argued that “remote guide”
`requires “dedicated code at the remote device.” See, e.g., Tr. 58:3–7, 60:19–
`61:14, 66:14–21. We agree with Comcast (id. at 96:3–10) that this is a new
`argument that was not presented and developed in Rovi’s briefs and,
`therefore, we do not consider it. See Paper 10, 3 (cautioning Rovi that “any
`arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed
`waived”).
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`Cir. 2016) (“Construing a claim term to include features of that term already
`recited in the claims would make those expressly recited features
`redundant.”). In addition, we determine that recitations of some interactive
`features in the claims do not counsel in favor of reading in other unrecited
`aspects of interactivity.
`Rovi also relies on the ’801 patent specification. PO Resp. 8–9.
`Specifically, Rovi points to the title (“Interactive Television Program Guide
`with Remote Access”) and descriptions of “interactive” guides in the
`specification. Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1101, Abstract, 1:16–19, 1:28–30, 2:20–22,
`2:26–29, 2:57–66, 3:16–22, 4:1–5, 4:8–10, 6:1–4, 7:19–22, 7:40–41, 9:49–
`52, 15:11–15, 16:62–17:2, 23:13–15, Figs. 2a–2d, 12–23). Rovi further
`contends that in reaching our preliminary construction, we considered only
`the specification’s description of “on-line guides” in the Background of the
`Invention section without fully addressing “the Fig[ure] 6c disclosure of an
`‘on-line program guide’ with the interactive features of the invention.” Id. at
`10 (citing Ex. 1101, 14:48–66); see also id. at 11 (citing Ex. 2106 ¶¶ 23–29).
`We agree that the specification describes “interactive” guides. Rovi,
`however, does not explain why any of these descriptions is limiting
`(including the description of Figure 6c which is referred to as “another
`illustrative arrangement” (Ex. 1101, 14:48)), particularly in light of the claim
`drafter’s choice to omit the term “interactive” from the ’801 patent’s claims.
`We agree with Comcast that, “[b]y seeking to construe the plain term ‘guide’
`as an ‘interactive television program guide,’ Patent Owner improperly seeks
`to import limitations from the specification into the claims, as noted by the
`Board, rendering Patent Owner’s intentional word choice in prosecution
`meaningless.” Pet. Reply 4–5 (citing Dec. on Inst. 10–11); see Superguide
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`(“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the
`explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to
`import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”).
`Rovi also supports its proposed “interactive” limitation with
`(1) agreed constructions in the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) and
`the ITC’s order (PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2101, 187–188, 2844), 11–13); and
`(2) filings in related cases before the Board involving the ’263 patent (id. at
`10–12). Regarding the parties’ arguments and the Board’s findings in
`related cases (e.g., Case IPR2017-00950), Rovi acknowledges the claims in
`those cases recite an “interactive television program guide.” PO Resp. 11.
`In contrast, the claims here omit the term “interactive.”
`Regarding the ITC proceedings, we observe that the agreed
`constructions (“local guide” and “remote guide”) to which Rovi cites are for
`the ’263 patent, not the ’801 patent. Ex. 2101, 186. We further observe that
`the ’263 patent’s claims use “the local guide” to refer back to “a local
`interactive television program guide” and do not appear to use the term
`“remote guide.” See Ex. 2108, claim 14. In its Patent Owner Response,
`Rovi does not address specifically how agreed constructions as to the ’263
`patent relate to the constructions of those terms in the ’801 patent. See PO
`Resp. 9. Patent Owner also points to “the ITC’s findings on related terms.”
`Id. (citing Ex. 2101, 292). From the ITC’s discussion of the term “recording
`by the local guide,” however, it does not appear that the ITC was directly
`
`
`4 We refer to the page numbers added by Petitioner in the lower right corner
`of Exhibit 2101.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`presented with the issue of whether the “local guide,” as recited in the ’801
`patent claims, must be interactive. See Ex. 2101, 289–292 (noting that the
`parties’ arguments were commingled with other disputed phrases and
`focused on proposed causal and geographic limitations).
`We emphasize that the issue here is not whether the “guide” and
`“electronic program guide” include any interactive features; in the Decision
`on Institution, we agreed with Rovi that the challenged claims recite certain
`interactive features (Dec. on Inst. 10). Instead, the issue is whether we
`should read “interactive” into the construction of “guide” and “electronic
`program guide,” such that those terms include additional unrecited
`interactive functionality. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that
`we should not, and thus, we do not read any requirements for interactivity
`into those terms beyond those already recited in the claims themselves.
`Other than its arguments regarding whether the claimed “guide[s]”
`must be interactive, Rovi agrees with the Board’s preliminary determination
`that the claims require two separate guides. PO Resp. 14–15. Rovi also
`acknowledges that stating where the specific guide resides is unnecessary in
`construing these terms because such “additions merely restate the language
`of the broader claim limitation.” Id. at 15. We agree. See Apple, Inc., 842
`F.3d at 1237 (“The Board was correct to not include in its construction of
`‘menu’ features of menus that are expressly recited in the claims. . . .
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`Construing a claim term to include features of that term already recited in
`the claims would make those expressly recited features redundant.”).5
`In its Reply, Comcast contends that Rovi seeks to limit the broadest
`reasonable construction of a guide “to a single software component that
`generates listings while excluding other software components that assist in
`providing claimed guide functionality.” Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing PO Resp.
`31–35; Ex. 2106 ¶¶ 128, 129, 138–142). According to Comcast, this
`exclusion finds no basis in the plain language of the claims and the
`specification of the ’801 patent. Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1152 ¶¶ 10–14).
`Comcast also contends that Rovi’s arguments directed to the guide
`terms contradict the construction Rovi offered in the related ITC proceeding.
`Pet. Reply 6. In that proceeding, Comcast argues that Rovi expanded the
`scope of the claimed “local guide” to capture all software components
`related to any local guide functionality, including recording. Id. (citing
`Ex. 2101, 188–199, 222–236; Ex. 1154 ¶¶ 158–160, 169, 170, 371, 376).
`Comcast argues that Rovi’s declarant in the ITC proceeding, Dr. Michael
`Shamos, who also is Rovi’s declarant in this proceeding, provided
`supporting testimony that the local guide could be an “extensive collection
`of hardware and software.” Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1154
`¶ 169). In this proceeding, however, Comcast argues that Rovi and Dr.
`Shamos appear to take the erroneous position that the claim term “local
`
`
`5 During oral argument, in response to a question regarding the ITC’s
`construction of the “local guide” being on user television equipment and its
`construction that the “remote guide” uses a remote access link, counsel for
`Rovi stated that “I don’t think where [the guides are] implemented is
`meaningful because that’s recited in the claim separately.” Tr. 66:22–67:24.
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`guide” is a single software application. Id. at 7 (compare PO Resp. 33 and
`Ex. 2106 ¶ 141, with Ex. 1154 ¶¶ 169, 371). According to Comcast, we
`should hold Rovi to the same broad construction of the claim term “local
`guide” in this proceeding that it wielded to exclude others from practicing
`the claimed invention in the related ITC proceeding. Id. at 7–8.
`Beyond our discussion of interactivity above, neither party directs us
`to, nor can we find, a disclosure in the specification that specifically
`identifies what element or elements constitute a “guide.” Given the lack of
`disclosure in this regard, we decline to limit the “guide” to a single software
`application.
`We further clarify that the plain language of independent claims 1, 5,
`10, 15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 indicates that the claim terms “local
`guide” and “remote 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 guide and remote guide] may
`be different guides that communicate in a manner or manners discussed . . .
`herein.”), 23:4–7 (“The remote [] guide may . . . send audio, graphical, and
`text messages to the local [] guide for playing or displaying by user
`television equipment 22.”). The specification also explains that the local and
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`remote guides may be the same guide, in which case they are separately
`identifiable elements in that each guide is compiled to run on a different
`platform. See id. at 15:15–18 (“The remote access and local guide may, for
`example, be the same guide but compiled to run on two different platforms
`and to communicate in a manner or manners discussed herein.”).
`Turning now to the extrinsic evidence, in Dr. Tjaden’s Declaration
`accompanying the Petition, he testifies that “the local guide may be
`implemented at least in part on a server or other device outside the user’s
`home.” Ex. 1102 ¶ 36. In Dr. Tjaden’s Declaration accompanying the
`Reply, he elaborates further on his initial position by testifying that “a
`[person of ordinary skill in the art] looking at the ’801 Patent would have
`understood that many different arrangements of the software and hardware
`components comprising a guide are possible and acceptable in [the] prior art
`used to show obviousness.” Ex. 1152 ¶ 11. To support this testimony, he
`directs us to the different arrangements of software and hardware in the ’801
`patent. Id. (citing Ex. 1101, 7:16–19, 7:33–35, 7:43–47, 9:36–38, 10:41–
`48).
`
`Comcast also directs us to Dr. Shamos’s Declaration in the ITC
`proceeding as further evidence as to what element or elements constitute a
`“guide.” See Pet. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1154). Although we recognize that the
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard governs in this proceeding,
`whereas the district court claim construction standard governs in an ITC
`proceeding, Dr. Shamos’s testimony in the ITC proceeding is relevant here
`because it sheds some light on what element or elements he believes
`constitutes a “guide.” In the ITC proceeding, Dr. Shamos testifies that the
`local guide could be an “extensive collection of hardware and software.”
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`Ex. 1154 ¶ 169. He also testifies “that the ‘local guide’ [should not be
`construed as] a single software application that must reside on a device in
`the user’s home,” and “[n]othing in the claims exclude a ‘recording
`application’ from being part of the local guide.” Id. ¶ 371. Dr. Shamos’s
`testimony in the ITC proceeding is consistent with Dr. Tjaden’s testimony in
`this proceeding because, like Dr. Tjaden, Dr. Shamos does not limit a
`“guide” to a single software application, but rather contemplates that the
`“guide” may constitute different arrangements of software and hardware.
`We note that the aforementioned testimony from Dr. Tjaden and Dr.
`Shamos suggests that the “guide” may include both software and hardware.
`We do not find support in the intrinsic record that the “guide” may include
`hardware. Rather, the ’801 patent separately refers to the guide and the
`hardware on which it is implemented. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, 1:34–35
`(“Interactive television program guides are typically implemented on set-top
`boxes . . . .”). The aforementioned testimony, however, is consistent with
`our conclusion that the “guide” may constitute more than just a single
`software application.
`In summary, upon weighing all the evidence bearing on the
`construction of the claim terms “guide” and “electronic program guide,” we
`maintain that the broadest reasonable interpretation of these claim terms is
`“software operative at least in part to generate a display of television
`program listings,”6 and we do not read any requirements for interactivity
`
`
`6 In the Decision on Institution, we did not include “control” in our
`preliminary construction. Petitioner also omitted that term from its proposed
`construction in this case. Pet. 14. We observe, however, that “control”
`appears in the construction of related terms in Cases IPR2017-00950,
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01066
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`into those terms beyond those recited in the claims We also maintain that
`the claim terms “local guide” and “remote guide” are separately identifiable
`elements, and are not construed properly as reading on the same guide.
`B. Obviousness Over the Combined Teachings of Sato and Humpleman
`Comcast contends that claims 1–54 of the ’801 patent are
`unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Sato and
`Humpleman. Pet. 19–37. 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 ¶¶ 94–158. In its Patent Owner Response, Rovi
`presents a number of arguments as to why the combined teachings of Sato
`and Humpleman do not render the limitations of the challenged claims
`obvious. PO Resp. 21–42. Rovi relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Shamos
`to support its positions. Ex. 2106 ¶¶ 125–151.
`
`
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
