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 IPR2017-01143
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 8
`
`Entered: October 18, 2017
`
`
`
`
`Before: KEVIN F. TURNER, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01143
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 8
`
`Entered: October 18, 2017
`
`
`
`
`Before: KEVIN F. TURNER, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01143
`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. 1201, “the ’801 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Rovi
`Guides, Inc. (“Rovi”), filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when
`“the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Having considered the Petition and
`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 1–54 of the ’801 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 ’801 Patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`According to the parties, the ’801 patent has been asserted in 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 now pending as Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Corp., No. 1:16-
`cv-09826 (S.D.N.Y.). Pet. 1–2; Paper 3, 2. The parties also assert that the
`’801 patent has been asserted in 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. The parties also state that the
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01143
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`’801 patent is at issue in Comcast Corp. v. Rovi Corp., No. 1:16-cv-03852
`(S.D.N.Y.). 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, as well as
`petitions challenging related patents. Pet. 3; Paper 3, 2.
`
`B. The ’801 Patent
`
`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. 1201, 1:16–19. The ’801 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
`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 described in the patent. Id. at 5:35–36, 7:15–
`16.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01143
`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. Id. at 5:37–40, 7:40–43.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01143
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`
`
`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
`7:44–53. 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
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01143
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`interactive television program guides may be two different guides that
`communicate with each other. Id. at 15:20–23.
`Figure 5 of the ’801 patent, reproduced below, shows an illustrative
`arrangement for remote program guide access device 24. Id. at 5:47–49,
`12:30–31.
`
`
`As shown in Figure 5 reproduced above, remote program guide access
`device 24 may include user interface 52 and processing circuitry 54. Id. at
`12:37–39. Remote program guide access device 24 also may include
`communications device 58 for supporting communications between the
`device and interactive television program guide equipment 17 over remote
`access link 19. Id. at 12:51–62.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01143
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`
`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. Comcast contends independent claims 5, 10, 15, 19,
`23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 recite substantially similar limitations to claim
`1 and therefore stand or fall together with claim 1. Pet. 9–13, 51–70.
`Comcast further contends claims 7, 12, 16, 20, 25, 30, 34, 38, 43, 48, and 52
`stand or fall together with claim 2; claims 8, 13, 17, 21, 26, 31, 35, 39, 44,
`49, and 53 stand or fall together with claim 3; claims 9, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32,
`36, 40, 45, 50, and 54 stand or fall together with claim 4; and claims 11, 24,
`29, 42, and 47 stand or fall together with claim 6. Id. at 11–13, 51–70. At
`this stage of the proceeding, Rovi does not dispute Comcast’s grouping of
`claims. Prelim. Resp. 28.
`Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the challenged claims:
`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
`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;
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01143
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`
`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. 1201, 40:6–30.
`
`D. Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`Comcast asserts that claims 1–54 of the ’801 patent are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Blake1 and Killian.2
`
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016)
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard).
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire patent
`
`
`1 PCT Int’l Pub. No. WO 98/10589; published Mar. 12, 1998 (Ex. 1222,
`“Blake”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,163,316; issued Dec. 19, 2000 (Ex. 1208, “Killian).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01143
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`disclosure). In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). An inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is different from
`its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the specification with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Comcast proposes constructions for several claim limitations.
`Pet. 15–19. For purposes of this decision, we determine that we need only
`consider the construction of “guide” and “electronic program guide” to
`resolve the issues before us at this stage of the proceeding. To the extent it
`is necessary for us to construe any other claim language, we do so below in
`the context of analyzing whether the information presented shows a
`reasonable likelihood that Comcast would prevail in establishing the
`unpatentability of the challenged claims.
`Comcast contends that the claim terms “guide” and “electronic
`program guide” are not limited to interactive program guides. Id. at 16. In
`response, Rovi contends that these terms are limited to “interactive
`interfaces” (i.e., interactive guides). Prelim. Resp. 9–12. In particular, Rovi
`notes that independent claim 1 requires the remote guide be capable of
`“receiving . . . a user selection of a program listing” and “transmitting . . . a
`communication to the local guide” and the local guide be capable of
`“receiving the communication” and “scheduling . . . the program
`corresponding to the selected program listing.” Id. at 9–10. Rovi further
`contends that this construction is consistent with the specification. Id. at 10.
`At this stage of the proceeding, we agree with Comcast that the terms
`“guide” and “electronic program guide” are not limited to interactive guides.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01143
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`
`In arguing that the recited “guide” and “electronic program guide” are
`limited to interactive guides, Rovi relies on the functions of the “remote
`guide” and “local guide” recited in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 9–10. Rovi also
`points to portions of the specification of the ’801 patent discussing
`interactive guides. Id. at 10. As Comcast points out, however, the ’801
`patent describes both “interactive television program guides” and “on-line
`program guides.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶ 32). Comcast’s expert Dr.
`Tjaden notes that “‘online program guides’ are described that ‘allow users to
`view program listings using a web-browser,’ but ‘do not allow the user to set
`in-home reminders for programming, to adjust parental control settings, or to
`select programs for recording on the user’s videocassette recorder.’” Ex.
`1202 ¶ 32 (quoting Ex. 1201, 1:43–50).
`Rovi points out that claim 1 requires the recited guides to have certain
`interactive features (e.g., receiving a user selection of a program listing).
`Prelim. Resp. 9–10. We agree, but determine at this stage of the proceeding
`that such recitations do not counsel in favor of importing other unrecited
`interactive features into the claims. See SuperGuide 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. For example, a particular
`embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a
`claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”). Thus, at
`this stage of the proceeding, we determine that a “guide” as recited in the
`challenged claims is “software operative at least in part to generate a display
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01143
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`of television program listings,” and we do not read any requirements for
`interactivity into those terms beyond those recited in the claims.
`We, however, take this opportunity to clarify that, based on the plain
`language of independent claim 1, the claim terms “local guide” and “remote
`guide” are separately identifiable elements. See Becton, Dickinson & Co. v.
`Typco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Where a
`claim lists elements separately, ‘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 separate identifiable elements capable of communicating with each
`other. See, e.g., Ex. 1201, 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 . . . therein.”), 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.”).
`In summary, we determine 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 do not read any requirements
`for interactivity into those terms beyond those recited in the claims. We
`further clarify that the claim terms “local guide” and “remote guide” are
`separately identifiable elements, and are not construed properly as reading
`on the same guide.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01143
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a
`whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in
`the art;3 and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of non-obviousness
`(i.e., secondary considerations). Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
`18 (1966). We analyze the asserted grounds based on obviousness with the
`principles identified above in mind.
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness over Blake and Killian
`
`Comcast contends that claims 1–54 of the ’801 patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Blake and Killian.
`Pet. 21–51. 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
`
`
`3 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 ’801 Patent. Pet. 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 ’801
`Patent and the asserted prior art.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01143
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Tjaden to support its positions. Ex. 1202
`¶¶ 95–183. At this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded by Comcast’s
`explanations and supporting evidence.
`We begin our analysis with brief overviews of Blake and Killian, and
`then we address the parties’ contentions with respect to the claims at issue in
`this asserted ground.
`
`1. Overview of Blake
`
`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:
`
`
`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.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01143
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`at 16:17–19. 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:
`
`
`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
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01143
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`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, 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. Ex. 1222, 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
`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.
`
`2. Overview of Killian
`
`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
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01143
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`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.
`
`3. Claim 1
`
`In its Petition, Comcast contends that Blake’s television schedule
`system accounts for each of the limitations recited in independent claims 1,
`5, 10, 15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51. Pet. 21–28; see also id. at 30–
`48. 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
`guide.” Id. at 24, 31–32. Comcast also relies on Blake’s input device 332 as
`a “remote device” (id. at 25, 33), 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
`guide” (id. at 25–26, 33–34).
`Comcast also presents alternative arguments to the extent Blake does
`not disclose a variety of claim limitations. For instance, Comcast contends
`that to the extent “local guide” is limited to implementations on equipment
`within a user’s home, such a limitation would have been obvious in view of
`Killian, which teaches an interactive guide on a television receiver which
`can be constructed based on user profile information stored locally or
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01143
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`remotely. Id. at 37–38. 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. at 38–39.
`In its Preliminary Response, Rovi presents a number of arguments
`that can be grouped as follows: (1) whether Comcast has demonstrated that
`Blake and Killian, either alone or in combination, account for all the
`limitations recited in independent claim 1; 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. 12–31.
`a. Limitations
`First, Rovi contends that Comcast has not shown the combination of
`Blake and Killian discloses a remote guide accessible by a user of a “remote
`device.” Prelim. Resp. 14–16, 20–22. 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 14–15 (citing 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 proposed claim construction of “interactive
`television program guide,” but instead discloses controlling home recording
`equipment. Id. at 15–16.
`Second, according to Rovi, there is no evidence that the purported
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01143
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`remote guide taught by Blake is in communication with a local guide.
`Prelim. Resp. 16–19, 23–27. 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
`processing system 334 is part of the local interactive television program
`guide. Id. at 17–18, 23–26. 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, 26.
`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 guide”
`i.
`We do not view Comcast’s position as conceding that Blake does not
`expressly disclose a “remote 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. 34); Pet.
`34. We understand Comcast’s primary argument, however, to be that Blake
`teaches a “remote guide” because it discloses allowing a user to select a
`program to record according to themes. See Pet. 25–26, 32–33. 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,
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01143
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`claims 1, 6; 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
`18:5–10. On this record, we agree with Comcast that the disclosure of this
`user interface is sufficient to show the presence of a “remote guide.”
`In arguing that Blake does not disclose a user’s engagement with a
`“remote 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 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 purported claim construction of “interactive television
`program guide.” Prelim. Resp. 15–16. As discussed in Section II.A. above,
`we construed “guide” as “software operative at least in part to generate a
`display of television program listings,” and did not read any requirements
`for interactivity into that term beyond those recited in the claims. Thus, we
`are unpersuaded by Rovi’s arguments regarding control functions that would
`be required of an “interactive television program guide.” In addition, we
`observe that Rovi draws a distinction between “software” and “home
`recording equipment,” alleging that Comcast only argues that Blake allows
`for control of the home recording equipment. Id. We disagree with Rovi
`because Comcast states that “Blake’s user interface . . . is software” that
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01143
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`“allows the user to view/navigate program listings.” Pet. 33–34. In other
`words, the user first selects categories and, in response, the software
`generates a particular display of listings that is dependent on the user’s
`selections. In this way, the software functions to display a subset of listings
`available to be recorded and the user controls the display based on the
`categories of programs of interest to the user.
`communication with the local guide
`ii.
`Rovi contends that it did not admit before the ITC that Blake’s central
`processing system 334 is part of the Blake’s local guide. Prelim. Resp. 16–
`17. Still, even if that is the case, Comcast nevertheless shows that the parties
`are not disputing that, under the broadest reasonable construction of “local
`guide,” part of this local guide may be located away from the user premises.
`Specifically, Comcast provides evidence that Rovi “argued that the claimed
`local guide limitations could be met by software implemented in part on
`equipment located outside the user premises.” Pet. 5–6; see also id. at 37
`(“[Rovi] asserted that a remote data server or an external broadcast station is
`a part of the local guide.”). Accordingly, Blake’s central processing system
`334 cannot initially be ruled out as containing part of the local guide solely
`because it is located away from the user premises.
`We turn then to whether Comcast has provided sufficient evidence at
`this stage of the proceeding that Blake’s central processing system 334
`implements part of the claimed “local guide.” Comcast shows that Blake’s
`central processing system 334 receives a communication identifying a
`program to be recorded and then activates recording device 336 to record
`programs. Pet. 25. Comcast’s analysis is consistent with the independent
`claims of the ’801 patent, which delineate the functions of the local guide,
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01143
`Patent 8,046,801 B2
`
`remote guide, and user equipment. Specifically, it is the responsibility of the
`local guide to “receive[] the communication” and “schedul[e] . . . the
`program . . . for recording by the user equipment.” Ex. 1201, 40:27–30.
`Like the local guide of the ’801 patent, Blake’s central processing system
`334 also receives a communication identifying a television program to be
`recorded and then uses recording device 336 to record the program.
`Ex. 1222, 18:12–16. Accordingly, on this record, we find that Comcast has
`presented sufficient evidence that would support a finding that Blake’s
`central processing system 334 implements part of the local guide.
`In response, Rovi argues that part of the local interactive television
`program guide cannot be implemented on Blake’s central processing system
`334 because it does not perform the additional functions of “generat[ing] a
`display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at the
`user site” (as required by the independent claims), or “allow[ing] a user to
`navigate through the listings, make selections, and control functions of the
`software” (as required by the proposed claim construction of “interactive
`television program guide”). Prelim. Resp. 18–19. As to the latter, as
`discussed in Section II.A. above, we construed “guide” as “software
`operative at least in part to generate a display of television program listings,”
`and did not read any requirements for interactivity into that term beyond
`those recited in the claims. As to the former, we do not understand Comcast
`to be arguing that Blake’s central processing system 334 implements the
`entirety of the local guide. Instead, Comcast states that “Blake’s[] central
`processing system 334 is . . . a part of Blake’s local guide because it
`implements guide functionality, including recording commands, in support
`of the locally displayed guide.” Pet. 37 (emphasis added
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
