`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases:
`IPR2017-00950 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-00951 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-00952 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-01048 (Patent 8,578,413 B2)
`IPR2017-01049 (Patent 8,578,413 B2)
`IPR2017-01050 (Patent 8,578,413 B2)
`IPR2017-01065 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)
`IPR2017-01066 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)
` IPR2017-01143 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)1
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: June 19, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-00951 (Patent 8,006,263 B2), et al.
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`FREDERIC M. MEEKER, ESQUIRE
`SCOTT M. KELLY, ESQUIRE
`JOSHUA DAVENPORT, ESQUIRE
`Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
`1100 13th Street, N.W.
`Suite 1200
`Washington, D.C. 20005-4051
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`SCOTT A. MCKEOWN, ESQUIRE
`JAMES R. BATCHELDER, ESQUIRE
`Ropes & Gray, LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006-6807
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, June 19,
`
`2018, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-00951 (Patent 8,006,263 B2), et al.
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE ZECHER: So I'm Judge Zecher. To my right is Judge
`Turner. He's participating remotely from San Jose, California. To my left is
`Judge Jessica Kaiser. She is also participating remotely from Denver,
`Colorado.
`So this is an oral hearing for nine cases. I'm going to go ahead and
`quickly list the case numbers just so the record is clear. It's IPR2017-00950,
`IPR2017-00951, IPR2017-00952, IPR2017-01048, IPR2017-01049,
`IPR2017-01050, IPR2017-01065 and IPR2017-01066, last but not least,
`IPR2017-01143. So these IPRs involve a family of patents, three patents.
`The patents at issue are U.S. patent No. 8,006,263, U.S. patent No.
`8,578,413, and U.S. patent No. 8,046,801.
`So we allotted the parties two hours of oral argument each. I
`assume you guys have come to an agreement based on some e-mails about
`when we are going to take a break. I think it's after petitioner's case in chief.
`But when I ask the parties to come up and introduce themselves at the
`microphone, maybe somebody could clarify that for me. But let's start with
`having the petitioner introduce themselves. Please step to the microphone
`just so the judges remotely can hear you.
`MR. MEEKER: Thank you, Your Honors. Fred Meeker with the
`law firm of Banner & Witcoff representing Comcast Cable Communications
`LLC. With respect to timing, the petitioner had reserved its full two hours, I
`think. Rovi had indicated they would take substantially less time. And so
`the break that we had discussed was after petitioner's presentation, to the
`extent there is a break, just a short break.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-00951 (Patent 8,006,263 B2), et al.
`
`
`With me, I have Mr. George Medlock, who is vice president of
`patents and deputy general counsel for Comcast, and Seth Kramer, who is
`also counsel for Comcast. Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Thank you.
`MR. ROWLAND: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Mark Rowland
`of Ropes & Gray on behalf of patent owner. With me are my colleagues,
`Scott McKeown and Jim Batchelder, who will be making the substance of
`the argument today on behalf of patent owner. Also with us are Josef
`Schenker, Andrew Sutton and Brittany Westglow of Ropes & Gray, and two
`client representatives, Efrain Staino and Bruce Yen. Thank you.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Thank you. Quick question for patent owner,
`we didn't receive any demonstratives from you guys for these oral
`arguments. Is that because you don't have any or are you going to work off
`the ELMO?
`MR. ROWLAND: We are not going to work off the ELMO, Your
`Honor. We are just going to work off the excerpts of documents. We had
`no prepared demonstratives, and we'll refer to demonstratives put up by --
`submitted by petitioner.
`JUDGE ZECHER: So it's directly from the record?
`MR. ROWLAND: That's right, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ZECHER: So we'll turn the floor over to petitioner to
`begin your arguments. Thank you.
`MR. MEEKER: Thank you, Your Honor. And we have the
`demonstratives that we can hand up if you would like. We have a copy for
`you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ZECHER: That would be great.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-00951 (Patent 8,006,263 B2), et al.
`
`
`MR. MEEKER: We would like to reserve 20 minutes of our time,
`Your Honor.
`JUDGE ZECHER: I'll start the clock here. Twenty-one it is.
`MR. MEEKER: Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the
`Board, Fred Meeker with the law firm of Banner & Witcoff representing
`Comcast Cable Communications LLC. The oral argument will discuss IPRs
`for U.S. patent 8,006,263, referred to as the '263 patent; U.S. patent
`8,578,413, referred to as the '413 patent; and U.S. patent 8,046,801, referred
`to as the '801 patent. Collectively, the '263, '413 and '801 patents will be
`referred to as the Ellis mobile patents, which is the first named inventor of
`the patents.
`Slide 2 provides a table of contents for the presentation. Slide 3
`shows the instituted grounds for the '263 patent. The case involves using a
`remote guide to schedule recordings via a local guide. Comcast petitions
`have shown that this remote scheduling arrangement exists in the prior art in
`several different instituted grounds: Humpleman in combination with
`Killian, Sato in view of Humpleman, Blake in combination with Killian.
`Lawler and Allport are cited as teaching specific dependent claim features.
`Slide 4 shows the instituted grounds for the '413 patent. These
`combinations are consistent with those presented for the '263 patent.
`Slide 5 shows the instituted grounds for the '801 patent. These
`combinations are consistent with those presented in the '263 patent.
`Slide 6 now turns to undisputed issues in this matter. Slide 6
`shows that it's undisputed that claim 1 of the '263 patent is representative of
`the six independent claims of the '263 patent.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-00951 (Patent 8,006,263 B2), et al.
`
`
`Slide 7 shows that it is undisputed that claim 1 of the '413 patent is
`representative of the two independent claims of the '413 patent.
`Slide 8 shows that it's undisputed that claim 1 of the '801 patent is
`representative of the 12 independent claims of the '801 patent.
`Slide 9 shows that claim 1 of the '263 patent is representative of all
`Ellis mobile claims as to all issues.
`The briefing addresses every limitation of every claim. So we've
`actually addressed all the nuanced difference of each claim in the briefing.
`For the purposes of the oral argument, we are treating the claims the same.
`The demonstratives used representative claims and focus on the disputed
`issues. The issues in dispute across all Ellis mobile independent claims are
`the same. And the dependent claims are addressed separately.
`Slide 10 provides a high-level summary of the recited claim
`limitations in the '263 patent. The patent owner has asserted the claims to
`cover a set-top box being controlled by a remote device to set recordings
`with anything specific to the user on the remote device. The '263 patent
`claim 1 has a local guide at least partially in the user's home. The local
`guide receives a selection for recording from a remote guide. The remote
`guide is outside the user's home. The remote guide is generated based on a
`remote user profile. We'll show that the language of this limitation differs
`slightly in the '801 patent but is not an issue in dispute in this proceeding.
`So the one limitation that differs slightly is the one in purple.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Mr. Meeker, can I ask you a question about
`claim 1 of the '263 patent. What is your understanding from the
`specification as to how the two separate guides communicate with each
`other?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-00951 (Patent 8,006,263 B2), et al.
`
`
`MR. MEEKER: The specification has numerous ways where they
`communicate. In some embodiments they communicate across the internet
`via a web server. In other embodiments they are directly connected. And
`specifically we'll get into that in a little more detail, but the '263, '413 and
`'801 patent are almost silent as to that communication. So it just says it can
`use a web server or web pages to communicate along with any other
`protocol. It doesn't really go into the detail.
`The prior art goes into a lot of detail on that. And Dr. Shamos,
`their expert, said that all of those communication protocols, whether it's
`HTTP, TCP/IP, basically all of those different protocols are what we said
`was plumbing that can be ignored. So in the '263, '801 and '413 patent, they
`say communicates across the internet. It doesn't say how. It doesn't say is it
`via web server, what protocol is used. It just assumes that's known in the art.
`And the two experts actually agreed on that point, that those things were
`known in the art. And if you look at the '263 patent, it's assumed to be there.
`It's not really discussed as part of their local guide, the actual
`communication protocols.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Thank you.
`JUDGE TURNER: Just a quick question before you go on.
`You've highlighted there on slide 10 that generated based on remote user
`profile. I understand that patent owner is disputing whether all of the
`elements are taught of the claims by the references and whether you can
`combine those references. But does patent owner dispute that if those -- we
`can combine those and they teach the remaining elements, does patent owner
`acknowledge that we would have a remote guide generated by a remote user
`profile? Is that an issue still in this case between the parties?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-00951 (Patent 8,006,263 B2), et al.
`
`
`MR. MEEKER: It's not an issue in this case, Your Honor. So they
`have -- despite all of the briefing that they have made in this case across all
`nine petitions, there is not a single allegation that the remote guide
`customized based on the user profile is not shown in the references.
`And in fact, in the decisions that both you and Judge Kaiser, I
`think, authored, there is acknowledgment in there that the secondary
`references, as pointed out by Rovi's counsel, teach customizing remote
`guides based on user profiles, at least to the Killian reference. So that's
`never been disputed in this case at all, Your Honor.
`JUDGE TURNER: Thank you.
`MR. MEEKER: And I would say that is the one point, that this
`case was prosecuted for a decade, that limitation was added right before all
`of these cases were allowed. And now we are here before you and that
`limitation is not in dispute.
`Slide 11 provides a high-level summary of the recited claim
`limitations in the '413 patent which are almost identical to the '263 patent.
`Slide 12 provides a high-level summary of the recited claim
`limitations for the '801 patent. These limitations are substantially similar to
`those in the '263 patent. However, the '801 patent recites generating the
`remote guide based on program guide information received from a local
`guide. So instead of user profiles, the '801 uses a term that we'll get into in a
`minute, but it's broader than user profiles. It's just based on program guide
`information.
`None of these differences have been --
`JUDGE KAISER: Counsel, one question on the '801 patent. I
`know that there's briefing on the local guide and remote guide and whether
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-00951 (Patent 8,006,263 B2), et al.
`
`those should be interpreted as interactive guides. Is that a distinction that
`petitioner believes makes a difference in this case?
`MR. MEEKER: It doesn't make a difference, Your Honor. So in
`our combinations, we have clearly shown interactive guides in all of those
`limitations. And I think the one opinion you wrote, Your Honor, on the '801
`patent, did notice the difference. You didn't include interactive program
`guide in the interpretation of the '801 claim but did note there are some
`interactive features in the body of that claim even though it doesn't say IPG.
`We think that's a correct decision, Your Honor. We think you reached -- and
`I know you can change your mind. It's not binding on the Board, but that's
`certainly, we believe, a correct decision and consistent with that claim
`language in the '801 patent. And it's not in dispute in this proceeding, Your
`Honor. Thank you.
`Patent owner has asserted that the claims cover a set-top box being
`controlled by a remote device to set recordings. This claim does not
`require -- this is the '801 claim does not require anything specific to the user
`on the remote device.
`Slide 13 shows that the term "program guide information" used in
`the '801 claim should be construed very broadly under BRI in view of the
`'801 specification. And this goes to how they have identified program guide
`information and how they define that in the patent. So for the '801 claims,
`it's defined to include listing information, user information or favorite
`settings. Due to this construction of program guide information, it also is
`broad enough to include user profiles. Therefore, a showing of user profiles
`as in the '263 and '413 patents is sufficient to show program guide
`information in the '801 patent.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-00951 (Patent 8,006,263 B2), et al.
`
`
`Slide 14 shows that Dr. Tjaden's declaration demonstrates that the
`'263 and '413 claims are substantially similar. In fact, substantially identical.
`Slide 15 shows that Dr. Tjaden's declaration demonstrates that the
`'263 and '801 claims are substantially similar in scope. Because the '263,
`'413 and '801 claims are so similar, this discussion will generally refer to the
`'263 patent and its claims unless otherwise noted.
`Slide 16 we turn to an overview of the Ellis mobile patents.
`Slide 17 shows that the background of the invention of the Ellis
`mobile patents concede that local interactive television program guides were
`well known. The Ellis mobile patent admits that set-top boxes typically
`utilized IPGs at the time of the alleged invention.
`Slide 18 shows that the background of the invention of the Ellis
`mobile patents concedes that it was known to access program guides using a
`web browser over the internet.
`Slide 19 shows that Ellis mobile patents state that accessing an IPG
`remotely to schedule a recording is an object of the invention. The Ellis
`mobile patents thus concede local IPGs were known, remote program guides
`were known, communicating guide information over the internet was
`known. The alleged invention in the Ellis mobile patents is using a remote
`IPG to schedule a recording by a local IPG.
`Slide 20 shows that the patents were prosecuted for more than a
`decade. The examiner repeatedly rejected the applicant's arguments that
`guide-to-guide communication was a patentable feature. The claims were
`not allowed until amended to recite wherein the display of the plurality of
`program listings on the remote guide is generated based on a user profile or
`substantially similar language. The '413 patent claims are the same, and the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-00951 (Patent 8,006,263 B2), et al.
`
`'801 patent has equivalent limitation. Patent owner concedes that the user
`profile limitation is shown in the prior art.
`Turning now to slide 21, and this answers Judge Turner's question,
`the patent owner acknowledged that customizing local guides using remote
`user profiles are in the prior art. Although the Board can change its mind, it
`did recognize that patent owner, quote, does not dispute that Killian
`discloses a user profile and admits that Killian discloses storing viewer
`profiles locally or remotely.
`Slide 22 now turns to the Humpleman/Killian grounds.
`Slide 23 shows that the instituted grounds for Humpleman/Killian
`for the '263, '413 and '801 patents.
`Slide 24 now turns specifically to Humpleman. So what is
`Humpleman? It's a very detailed reference. It goes into substantially more
`detail than the Ellis mobile patents on its local guide and its remote guide.
`So Humpleman describes a conventional set-top box as is known in the art,
`and Humpleman adds a web server interface to the back of that set-top box.
`So it's a standard set-top box known in the art at the time with its EPG.
`Humpleman adds a web server to that set-top box, and that's called the DSS
`or digital satellite system network interface unit. So the network interface
`unit is a web server that reads the EPG information from the set-top box,
`customizes that EPG information and then serves it out to other devices
`either in the home or at work. And any device that has a browser can read
`that customized EPG information.
`So Humpleman is a substantial overlay on top of the disclosures
`taught in the '263, '413 and '801 patents. This can be shown on slide 24.
`Humpleman teaches the claimed local guide in red, the remote guide in blue,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-00951 (Patent 8,006,263 B2), et al.
`
`and the user profile in purple. So it's generating the content of the remote
`guide based on locally stored user profiles.
`Slide 25 shows a color-coded version of the network interface unit
`that's added to the standard set-top box in Humpleman. So this is the web
`server component. What does the web server component do? It takes the
`EPG data from the set-top box, extracts it, converts it to HTML, customizes
`it based on user profile, serves it out over the internet to local and remote
`devices, gets back a recording command and controls the VCR.
`So what boxes do what? So slide 25 shows a color-coded version
`of Figure 13 of Humpleman's provisional as annotated by Dr. Tjaden. The
`black box on the left points to the conventional EPG data that's extracted
`from the conventional set-top box. And the set-top box not shown on
`Figure 13 is what displays the EPG data. So this Figure 13 is just the
`network interface unit. It's just the web server portion of the set-top box.
`The black box on the right shows the recording application. The
`recording application together with the conventional set-top box which
`displays the listings constitutes the local guide. So the recording application
`is the CGI program to control the DVCR hardware. That's the digital VCR.
`So this is a control program, and that's consistent with the Board's
`construction of local guide. So it has a control program.
`And the reason the control program is in the set-top box is when it
`gets a recording command from the remote device, it does two things. The
`DIS and network interface unit first instructs the set-top box to tune to the
`correct channel. Secondly, it sends a command to the digital VCR to record
`the channel at a particular time and for a particular duration. So the orange
`box shows where the local EPG data is converted to HTML for use on the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-00951 (Patent 8,006,263 B2), et al.
`
`customized guide. So there's an orange box that says program converts EPG
`data to HTML. So that's taking the standard EPG data from the standard
`set-top box, converts it to an HTML, and then it serves it out to the remote
`device. So it goes through the HTTP mini server, which is a standard web
`server just like every page you access has a web server. That's your HTTP
`mini server. And it goes through the protocol step.
`And I believe, Judge Zecher, you asked about what is the
`communication in the '263. It also contemplates a web server and a protocol
`stack for communicating over the internet. It's not shown in that patent at
`all. So it's like one line that says there can be a server for serving web
`pages. It doesn't go into the detail of hypertext, transport protocol, a
`protocol stack, a transmission control protocol or IP protocol.
`So this diagram is far more detailed than what's shown in the Ellis
`mobile patents. And there's some dispute of whether that protocol stack is
`inside or outside the local guide. In the Ellis mobile patents it's not
`discussed at all. It's just assumed to be there. And their expert said, well,
`that's just the plumbing of the internet. We can ignore that. And so there's
`some dispute with respect to our expert at deposition said, well, that stuff
`there can be ignored as well based on how it's treated in the Ellis mobile
`specification.
`JUDGE TURNER: Counsel, let me ask a question. We are still on
`slide 25, I think; is that correct?
`MR. MEEKER: It is correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE TURNER: So the red box there is, I'm assuming, if I look
`at the previous slide, that refers to the local guide. Is that anywhere
`connected to any of the other elements here in Figure 13 of Humpleman?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-00951 (Patent 8,006,263 B2), et al.
`
`
`MR. MEEKER: So the red box is actually a to/from. That's an
`input/output port from the DSS unit, from the set-top box. So the web server
`outputs web pages and gets back in control. And it says to or from the
`digital TV. And I'll show you in a minute on slide 27 that that digital TV
`can either be inside the home or outside the home. So what it's served to is a
`display device which is a web browser. So that can be on a digital television
`in the home, a PC in the home, a remote laptop. So it just says to or from
`the client. And that's the digital TV client which can be a web browser
`located anywhere, either inside the home or outside the home.
`JUDGE TURNER: So I guess turning to slide 26, why isn't this
`general admonition? We have, well, here's how digital satellite services
`work. We have an EPG. Here is what an EPG does. But that's wonderful.
`Now we are going to focus on my invention, which is providing an HTML
`guide. Does Humpleman provide any disclosure other than the section that
`you have highlighted here on slide 26 that they actually use the EPG for
`presentation other than transforming it into HTML?
`MR. MEEKER: So Your Honor, it does say that the EPG is
`displayed. And I think you've hit it on the head when you said I'm going to
`focus on my invention. So it's undisputed, at least in the background of the
`'263 patents, that set-top boxes had interactive program guides. That was
`old and well known in the art. So a patent typically doesn't describe what's
`old and well known in art. It does say that the EPG is displayed, and the
`upper portion from the Humpleman provisional, says there's an off-air EPG
`hardware and system. So it exists. It's there. And I think that's consistent
`with the determination, at least preliminarily, in the initial decision.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-00951 (Patent 8,006,263 B2), et al.
`
`
`And typical of patents, they don't discuss what's old in the art. The
`'263 patent admits set-top boxes had EPGs, and for two important reasons.
`First of all, in 1998 not everyone had a television that had a web browser on
`it. So if you sell a set-top box to the average homeowner in 1998, all of their
`televisions weren't enabled for web browsers. So if they had a standard TV,
`they would use this HTML interface to program from the home or program
`from a computer in their house. Not necessarily on their television, also for
`pay-per-view. And we have at slide 56, which we'll get into in a minute, is
`Dr. Tjaden's reasoning on why you still needed a conventional EPG in 1998.
`JUDGE TURNER: Okay. And I got that. Thank you. That will
`be potentially helpful in a second, but I guess let me ask a more pointed
`question. Is petitioner relying on the EPG of Humpleman? That's the local
`guide?
`
`MR. MEEKER: In the first instance we are. But we also have
`Killian that we've used in combination just to show that the local guide can
`be displayed and interactive. That's our backup position.
`JUDGE TURNER: I got that. But we need two guides, right, for
`the independent claims; that's correct?
`MR. MEEKER: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE TURNER: So the local guide that petitioner is relying on,
`is that the EPG or is it another version of the HTML version?
`MR. MEEKER: No, it's the EPG, Your Honor, and control
`software. So we are relying on two things for the local guide.
`JUDGE TURNER: Okay. But again, this goes to the patent
`owner's argument, which they'll get up and address, I suppose, but if the
`EPG, if that's aspirational and just saying, well, you could do that, that's not
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-00951 (Patent 8,006,263 B2), et al.
`
`what I'm doing, how does Humpleman teach using the EPG? If Humpleman
`is basically saying this is what I could have done and this is what other
`people do, but that's not what I'm going to do, how does that teach using the
`EPG as a local guide?
`MR. MEEKER: Well, Humpleman says the EPG displays the list
`of available programs and the specific time at which the programs can be
`viewed through the service. Humpleman specifically talks about EPG
`hardware in a system. I think it's clear from the overall teaching of
`Humpleman that the EPG guide on the standard set-top box remains. And
`we have expert testimony that confirms that. I mean, it says it explicitly in
`Humpleman that the EPG displays a list of available programs. And that's
`confirmed by Humpleman's provisional that talks about the EPG hardware
`and system.
`JUDGE TURNER: But the sentence before that says most digital
`satellite services provide programming information. So it's clear that the
`sentence before it is not directed towards Humpleman's system necessarily.
`It's directed towards most digital satellite services. So it's as if I'm trying to
`explain to you I have a TV and I have a satellite receiver and alternately I
`can have a DVD player. Well, it doesn't mean that you have to have all of
`those. Why isn't this sort of a general teaching that we don't use specifically
`in the case of Humpleman? Even if we modify it by Killian, why isn't this a
`general teaching? I guess that's what I'm looking for. Maybe there isn't a
`better answer than you've given me.
`MR. MEEKER: Well, Your Honor, it does say most digital
`satellite services, but it's also in the context of column 22, lines 30 to 46
`which are talking about the invention. And then it says the EPG. And in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-00951 (Patent 8,006,263 B2), et al.
`
`this context it's the same EPG referred to throughout the provisional which is
`the EPG hardware and system. So the EPG refers to the EPG hardware and
`system, we believe. And that's our position and, I think, supported by the
`record. And that's displayed on the digital satellite system. And we do get
`into more detail on that on slides 52 to 56, Your Honor, that has declaration
`support for that position.
`JUDGE TURNER: I don't want to use up all your time. Please go
`ahead. I'll return to it later on, I guess.
`MR. MEEKER: Thank you, Your Honor. Slide 26 shows
`Humpleman's off-air EPG and system that displays a list of available
`programs and show times. This discussion of most satellite services and
`EPG is the part of the specification describing the details of Humpleman's
`systems. Not prior art systems.
`Slide 27 shows a local guide in red in communication with a user
`terminal displaying an HTML guide in blue which can be located outside the
`home and connected via the internet to schedule recordings. The HTML
`guide, when accessed outside the home, is the claimed remote guide. And
`specifically, Your Honor, Judge Turner, you had asked about this, but
`whether the digital television in blue can be outside of the home. So the
`relevant sentence is at the bottom of the slide 27 which is Humpleman
`provisional at page 3 which states in pertinent part, Moreover, the system is
`compatible with the internet protocols so may be controlled from a computer
`outside the home running a browser just as well as the home DTV.
`Slide 28 shows Humpleman teaches the claimed local guide,
`remote guide and generating the content of the remote guide based on the
`locally stored user profiles.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-00951 (Patent 8,006,263 B2), et al.
`
`
`Slide 29 shows how Humpleman teaches, one, accessing the local
`HTML guide over the internet; two providing the remote recording via the
`remote guide over the internet.
`Slide 30 shows Humpleman's provisional discloses guide-to-guide
`communication better than Ellis mobile's teachings. So this is a detailed
`description, but what it describes is identified at the bottom of the chart. It's
`basically a detailed description of the software flow for one-touch recording.
`The local guide controls the DSS. When it receives a command from the
`remote guide to initiate the recording, the local guide control software
`selects the channel in the DSS and controls the DVCR to record the selected
`channel.
`And we've identified in blue the remote guide which is the DSS
`GUI or GUI. It's basically the HTML guide produced by Humpleman's DSS
`network interface unit. The local device or local guide is the DSS network
`interface unit or the DSS server. And again, the last sentence, the one-touch
`record program is triggered by the server, that's the local guide, the control
`software on the local guide, observing a record program set in the DSS GUI.
`So the HTML guide says record this program, and the one-touch record
`accesses the DVCR. So it basically asks the DVCR how do I program you
`and then sends a recording command to the VCR based on what it received
`from the remote guide.
`Turning to slide 31, slide 31 shows the Board preliminarily, at least
`preliminarily, agreed that the Humpleman provisional shows guide-to-guide
`communication.
`Slide 32 shows Humpleman's disclosure of user profiles in the
`local guide used to generate the remote guide.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00950 (Patent 8,006,263 B2)
`IPR2017-00951 (Patent 8,006,263 B2), et al.
`
`
`Slide 33 shows that Killian teaches interactive program guides. So
`now we are turning to Killian and Killian's disclosure of selecting,
`scheduling and recording viewing opportunities according to program
`listings.
`Slide 34, Killian provides further evidence of user profiles. Killian
`discloses separate viewer profiles stored in a
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
