Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Paper 9
`Date: December 3, 2019
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, BRIAN J. McNAMARA,
`and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Paper 9
`Date: December 3, 2019
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, BRIAN J. McNAMARA,
`and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Charter Communications, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a petition, Paper 2
`(“Petition” or “Pet.”), to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–53 (the
`“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,907 B1 (“the ’7907 patent”).
`35 U.S.C. § 311. We have jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) and
`35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be
`instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “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.” Having considered the
`arguments and the associated evidence presented in the Petition and the
`Preliminary Response, for the reasons described below, we decline to
`institute inter partes review.
`REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
`II.
`The Petition identifies the following real parties-in-interest: Charter
`Communications, Inc.; Charter Communications Holdings, LLC; Spectrum
`Management Holding Company, LLC; Charter Communications Operating,
`LLC; and Time Warner Cable, LLC. Pet. 75. Patent Owner identifies itself
`as the real party-in-interest. Paper 5.
`
`
` RELATED MATTERS
`III.
`Identification of Related Proceedings
`A.
`The Petition states that the ’7907 patent is asserted in the following
`litigation: (1) Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P. v. Charter Commc’ns Inc., Charter
`Commc’ns Holdings, LLC, Spectrum Management Holding Co., LLC,
`Charter Commc’ns Operating, LLC, and Time Warner Cable, LLC, Case
`No. 1:18-cv02033 (D. Del.); and (2) Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P. v. Cequel
`Commc’ns, LLC D/B/A Suddenlink Commc’ns, CSC Holding, LLC D/B/A
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`Optimum-Cablevision, and Altice USA, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-01919-UNA
`(D. Del.). Pet. 75.
`Petitioner identifies the following additional petitions filed against the
`’7907 patent: IPR2019-01137 and IPR2019-01139. Id.
`Petitioner identifies the following petitions filed against related U.S.
`patent 6,754,907 (“the ’4907 patent”): IPR2019-01136, IPR2019-01138,
`and IPR2019-01140).
`
`
`IV. THE ’7907 PATENT
`The ’7907 patent concerns a video-on-demand (“VOD”) system that
`replaces a conventional, immobile, fixed bandwidth set-top box that does not
`include a display with a second communications system and display, such as
`a web browser running on a portable computer. See Ex. 1001, 1:17–55.
`Figure 1 shown below is a block diagram of a configuration an operating
`environment of such a system.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’7907 patent
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`As shown in Figure 1, VOD system 100 includes (i) a processing
`system 103, (ii) first communications interface 101 to first communications
`system 111, such as optical fiber or wire cable system that drives first
`display 121, e.g., a television, and (iii) second interface 102 such as the
`Internet (in particular, the World Wide Web, or the “web”), to second
`communications system 112 that uses less bandwidth than the first
`communications system and drives second display 122, e.g., a personal
`computer with a browser. Id. at 2:28–48. The VOD system may include a
`conventional computer platform with programmed software that directs
`processing system 103 to transfer a control screen signal to second
`communications system 112 for routing to second display 122 that displays
`the control screen. Id. at 2:51–60. The control screen may include subject
`matter, e.g., a video content menu, a preview selection, an order selection, or
`display characteristics, from which a user can make selections. Id. at 3:37–
`60. When a viewer makes a selection, a corresponding signal is returned by
`the second communications system to processor 103, which responds by
`implementing the selected function, e.g., fast forwarding the video
`transferred over communications system 111 to first display 121. See id. at
`4:61–5:8.
`Figure 6 shown below illustrates a web-based system configuration.
`
`Figure 6 of the ’7907 patent
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`In the configuration of Figure 6, in response to log in by browser 622,
`system 100 returns a web page from which the user can make a selection,
`e.g., to preview a video. Id. at 5:47–57. System 100 returns the video
`preview in MPEG I format to browser 622 for display. Id. at 5:52–57. After
`the video display, browser 622 transfers menu selections to system 100 for
`television 621 to display selected video content using MPEG II. Id. at 5:58–
`60. System 100 then transfers the MPEG II video to the television 621 and a
`web page to browser 622. As television 621 displays selected video content
`browser 622 transfers menu selections to system 100 for browser 622 to
`display selected content in MPEG I. See id. at 6:4–22.
`ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
`V.
`The ’7907 patent includes three independent claims —claim 1 drawn
`to a video on demand system, claim 21 drawn to a method of operating a
`video on demand system, and claim 41 drawn to a processor-readable
`storage medium. Claim 1, reproduced below with Petitioner’s paragraph
`designations, is representative of the subject matter of the ’7907 patent:
`1[Preamble]. A video-on demand system comprising:
`1[A] a first communication interface configured to transfer
`first video signals to a first communication system using a
`first bandwidth;
`1[B] a second communication interface configured to transfer
`a control screen signal and second video signals to a
`second communication system using a second bandwidth
`that is less than the first bandwidth; and
`1[C] a processing system configured to transfer the control
`screen signal to the second communication interface,
`receive a viewer control signal from
`the second
`communication interface, and transfer the first video
`signals to the first communication interface if the first
`communication system is indicated by the viewer control
`signal or transfer the second video signals to the second
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`communication interface if the second communication
`system is indicated by the viewer control signal.
`
`
`
`VI. ART CITED IN PETITIONER’S CHALLENGES
`Petitioner cites the following references in its challenges to
`patentability:
`Reference
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,496,122
`European Patent No.
`EP 0 872 987 A2
`WO 92/22983
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,182,094
`
`
`Designation
`Sampsell
`
`Yosuke
`Browne
`Humpleman
`
`Exhibit No.
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1009
`
`VII. ASSERTED GROUNDS
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–53 would have been unpatentable on
`the following grounds:
`Claim(s) Challenged
`1–53
`1–53
`1–53
`
`Basis
`Sampsell, Yosuke
`Sampsell, Yosuke, Brown
`Sampsell, Yosuke, Humpleman
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`103
`103
`103
`
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`Petitioner defines a person of ordinary skill as having “held a
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related
`field with at least five years of experience or research in interactive systems
`applicable to digital television, including VOD for cable and Internet
`delivery.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1002, Declaration of Dr. Kevin Almeroth
`(“Almeroth Dec.”) ¶¶ 44–46. Patent Owner does not offer a definition of the
`level of ordinary skill, but reserves the right to dispute Petitioner’s
`assessment of the level of ordinary skill. Prelim. Resp. 20. Petitioner’s
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`undisputed definition of the level of ordinary skill appears to be
`commensurate with the subject matter for the ’7907 patent, for purposes of
`this Decision we apply Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill.
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The Petition has been accorded a filing date of May 30, 2019. For
`petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018, we interpret claims of an
`unexpired patent using the same standard applied by U.S. district courts, as
`announced in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`banc). See, 83 Fed. Reg. 51340, 51345 (Oct. 11, 2018) (announcing
`amendment of 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b), 42.200(b), and 42.300(b). Under this
`standard, words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary
`meaning. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (“the words of a claim are generally
`given their ordinary and customary meaning”) (citations and internal
`quotation marks omitted). “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a
`claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary
`skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. The
`person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only
`in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but
`in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. Id. Any
`special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Petitioner notes that certain terms were construed by the court in
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Sprint Commc’ns Co., LP, Case No.
`2:12-cv-859-JD, Dkt. 162 (Aug. 15, 2014, E.D. Pa.) (“Comcast Order”).
`Petitioner states that the parties agreed on the following claim constructions:
`(1) “control screen signal” should be construed as “a signal that defines a
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`control screen” and (2) “implementing a viewer control selection” should be
`construed as “in response to the video control signal, implementing a viewer
`control selection.” Pet. 17 (citing Comcast Order at 42.)
`Petitioner identifies additional terms construed by the district court,
`stating the Petitioner supports the district court’s constructions. Pet. 14–16.
`Patent Owner proposes no constructions and states that it disagrees with the
`district court’s constructions because they “violate several Federal Circuit
`principles, including, at least, reading in a negative limitation to a non-
`limiting term in the preamble.” Prelim. Resp. 20–21 n. 5. Petitioner
`contends that we need not resolve disputed claim constructions “because the
`claims read on the prior art under either [Patent Owner’s] proposed
`construction or the Comcast court’s construction.” Pet. 13. We now turn to
`Petitioner’s assertions concerning the terms construed by the Comcast court.
`“A video-on demand system” (claim 1); “operating a video-on-
`A.
`demand system” (claims 1 and 41)
`Petitioner notes that the Comcast court declined to adopt Patent
`Owner’s proposed construction, i.e., plain and ordinary meaning or
`“operating a system that provides video-on-demand” and instead construed
`“a video-on demand system” (claim 1) and “operating a video-on-demand
`system” to mean “operating a video-on-demand system without the use of a
`set top box for remote control of the video-on-demand system.” Pet. 14.
`Petitioner points out the court’s finding that the ’7907 patent disparages the
`use of a set-top box for remote control and disclaims systems that include a
`set top box for that purpose. Id. Petitioner contends that the outcome of this
`proceeding is not affected by the court’s construction because the cited prior
`art does not use a set-top box for remote control. Id. at 14–15. Neither the
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`parties nor the court’s construction addresses what constitutes “video-on-
`demand.”
`As a general rule, preamble language is not treated as limiting. Allen
`Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`Nonetheless, the preamble may be construed as limiting “if it recites
`essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and
`vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-
`Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). A preamble is not
`regarded as limiting “when the claim body describes a structurally complete
`invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the
`structure or steps of the claimed invention.” Catalina, 289 F.3d at 809. The
`preamble has no separate limiting effect if, for example, “the preamble
`merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the
`claim that completely set forth the invention.” IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas
`Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The question
`whether we should “treat a preamble as a limitation is a determination
`‘resolved only on review of the entire . . . patent to gain an understanding of
`what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the
`claim.’” Catalina Mktg., 289 F.3d at 808, quoting Corning Glass, 868 F.2d
`at 1257.
`As discussed below, in this case, the preamble is not merely a
`“descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim”—
`knowing that the claims are directed to a “video-on-demand” service
`breathes “life [and] meaning” into the claims, because it shows that the
`video control signal is a particular type of signal used to provide the video-
`on-demand services. IMS Tech., 206 F.3d at 1434; Catalina, 289 F.3d at
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`808. That is, the claims are not “structurally complete” without
`understanding that the control signal is a control signal of a video-on-
`demand service. Id. at 809.
`The ’7907 patent states that “[t]he video-on demand system offers an
`individual viewer various selections from a video content library for viewing
`on demand.” Ex. 1001, 1:24–27. The ’7907 patent explains “[t]he video-
`on-demand system receives a request from the viewer to view a particular
`selection from the video content library” and “[i]n response to the request
`the video-on-demand system transfers the selected video content over a
`communication system to the viewer’s display.” Id. at 1:30–34.
`Recognizing set top box implementations of video-on-demand systems are
`not mobile and do not have a video display, the ’7907 patent “solves the
`above problems with a video-on-demand system that uses a second
`communications system and display” by transferring a control screen signal
`to the second communication system, and receiving a viewer control signal
`from the second communication system. See, id. at 1:45–57.
`Having reviewed the claims and the specification of the ’7907 patent,
`we determine that the phrase “video-on-demand” in the preamble is
`necessary to give life and meaning to the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v.
`Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[I]f the claim
`preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then
`the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.”).
`The difference between watching television and watching a video on
`demand is a difference in kind, rendering a video-on-demand system
`different from a non-video-on-demand system. While a person watching
`television can change channels and thus in some sense selects video content,
`such video content is being distributed regardless of whether the user selects
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`it. Video-on-demand, by contrast, only is distributed when the user
`specifically selects it.1 Because of that nature, the user also has control over
`the playback of the video content, such as pausing and stopping. Although
`the dependent claims more clearly demonstrate the on-demand nature of the
`video content (e.g., with the menu and control buttons), only the preamble in
`the independent claims provides the clue as to this context.2 Thus, the
`preamble serves to provide the framework necessary to understand the body
`of the claims, and is limiting.
`“Viewer control signal”
`B.
`Petitioner notes that the district court declined to adopt Patent
`Owner’s proposed construction, i.e., plain and ordinary meaning or “a signal
`reflecting viewer control” and instead construed “view control signal” to
`mean “a viewer control signal generated and processed without the
`involvement of a set-top box for remote control of the video-on-demand
`system.” Pet. 15. Petitioner notes that the Comcast court found the ’7907
`patent does not dispute the use of a set-top box for purposes other than
`remote control, e.g. for the purpose of decoding a video signal and
`presenting it to a television. Id. n. 3. Referring to Figure 1, the
`Specification states “[i]n response to viewer input to the control screen, the
`second display 122 transfers a corresponding viewer control signal to the
`second communication system 112,” the second communication system 112
`
`
`1 See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:17–33 (instructing that, with video-on-demand, the
`system receives a request to view a selection from the video content library,
`the video is played “[i]n response to the [user’s] request,” and the user is
`allowed “to immediately view [the] selected video content”).
`2 This is broadly recited in claim 12 to encompass the controls relevant to
`video-on-demand, e.g., play, pause, stop, etc. Limiting claim 1 to a video-
`on-demand system provides meaningful context.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`transfers the viewer control signal to the second communications interface,”
`and “[t]he second communication interface 102 transfers the [viewer]
`control signal to the processing system 103.” Ex. 1001, 2:61–67. Thus, we
`understand the viewer control signal to be a signal generated in response to
`user input.
`“transfer . . .the [first/second] video signal” (claim 1) /
`C.
`“transferring [first/second] video signals” (claims 21, 41
`Petitioner notes that the court declined to adopt Patent Owner’s
`proposed construction, i.e., plain and ordinary meaning or “sending
`[first/second] video signal” and instead construed “transfer . . .the
`[first/second] video signal” (claim 1) / “transferring [first/second] video
`signals” to mean “in response to the viewer control signal transferring
`[first/second] video signals.” Pet. 16. Petitioner points out that the court
`found no disagreement as to what it means to transfer a video signal, but in
`view of the description in the ’7907 patent, found that the video signals are
`transferred in response to the viewer control signal received from the
`computer. Id. at 16. Claim 1 explicitly recites the processing system
`transfers the video signals to the first communication interface if the first
`system is indicated by the viewer control signal or the second
`communication interface if the second communication system is indicated
`by the viewer control signal; we do not perceive a need to construe this term.
`D. Control screen signal
`Petitioner proposes that “control screen signal” should be construed as
`“a signal that defines a control screen.” Pet. 17. The independent claims
`recite steps for transferring the control screen and video content signals. The
`’7907 patent’s specification is replete with instances describing the control
`screen as something other than video content. See, e.g., id. at 3:37–53
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`(noting the distinction drawn between the control screen and the menu it
`provides to allow the viewer to watch video content); 1:26–28 (describing
`various video content types), 1:64–2:3 (noting that the “video-on-demand
`system implements a viewer the control menu selections”) (emphasis added).
`As another example, the ’7907 patent describes the control screen as a
`webpage displaying a menu. Ex. 1001, 1:64, 2:60.
`Reviewing the claims and specification, we determine that a “control
`screen signal” provides the user with controls that allow the user to control
`video content (e.g., by choosing which content to play or to control the
`playback of the content), whereas the “video content signals” are the actual
`media (movies, television shows, etc.) that are viewed by the user and
`controlled by the control signals.3
`
`
`X. ANALYSIS
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 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 ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`
`3 This construction is consistent with and informed by our construction of
`“video-on-demand” above.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`Claims 1–53 As Obvious Over Sampsell and Yousuke
`A.
`Sampsell – Ex. 1005
`
`Sampsell discloses a remote control system for use with an image
`display device, e.g., a television or computer monitor, in which a transmitter
`sends a selected image signal to a remote control and the remote control
`displays a corresponding image that may be the same as or distinct from the
`image displayed on the display device. Ex. 1005, Abstract, 2:18–28. By
`permitting a user to view on the remote control channels not displayed on
`the display device, Sampsell avoids obscuring the television display, e.g., as
`in conventional picture-in-picture technology. Id. at 2:54–58. Sampsell also
`discloses a docking station connected to the TV by cables and to the video
`remote control by RF communication. Id., Abstract. According to Sampsell
`“[d]igital command and information signals are exchanged between the
`docking station and video remote control to allow control from the remote
`control of the functions of the TV and other video devices. Id.
`Figure 2 of Sampsell, reproduced below, is a prospective view:
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`
`Figure 2 of Sampsell depicts remote control system 150, which
`includes remote control 170 that has image screen 156, and docking station
`202. Ex. 1005, 7:32–36. In this embodiment, docking station 202 receives
`image signals from, e.g., VCR 206, laser disc player 208, or its own internal
`TV tuner. The purpose of this arrangement is to have an image display
`system capable of displaying two distinct images, e.g., one on television 114
`and one on the remote control screen 156. Id. at 7:58–63, 3:45–48.
`Figure 1 of Sampsell, reproduced below with added coloration,
`provides a schematic diagram of the functional components of remote
`control system 150:
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`
`Figure 1 of Sampsell schematically shows the main components of:
`image processor 172 (within docking station 202) (green outline), external
`display (items 110, 114, e.g. such as in a TV) (blue outline), image sources
`102 and 104 (yellow outline), and remote control 170 (red outline). Image
`processor 172 uses transmitter 108 to wirelessly send an image signal from
`image source 102 or 104 to receiver 152 of remote control 170. Ex. 1005,
`4:43–47, 5:56–58. Receiver 152 of remote control 170 receives those image
`signals, decodes and processes them (using digital video decoder 155 and
`digital audio decoder 153), and displays them on image screen 156. Id. at
`6:1–24. Remote control 170 also includes IR receiver 310 so that remote
`control 170 can be programmed by learning other remote control’s IR
`signals. Id. at 8:10–20, 8:49–9:52.
`Remote control 170 sends signals to docking station / image processor
`172 using control transmitter 164. Id. at 7:9–18, 9:45–50. The signals sent
`by remote control 170 through control transmitter 164 may be used to select
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`a channel to view on image screen 156 of remote control 170, or may be
`used to control other devices using learned signals. Id. at 7:9–18, 7:65–8:3.
`Yosuke – Ex. 1006
`
`Yosuke discloses a system in which a client uses a browser to access
`an HTML document that includes a control code for controlling a video-on-
`demand server. Ex. 1006, Abstract. Yosuke’s method
`comprises the steps of receiving a demand for providing
`information from a client through a network, using the world
`wide web as a system for providing a link to information on the
`Internet, and sending information to the client through a
`transmission line different from the network in response to the
`received demand for providing information from the client.
`Id. at 2:18–25. Figure 1 of Yosuke, shown below, is a block diagram of
`Yosuke’s VOD system. Id. at 2:43–45.
`
`
`Figure 1 of Yosuke – Block Diagram of VOD System
`
`VOD server 11 in Figure 1 of Yosuke stores information (audio and video
`data, referred to as AV data) to be provided to clients over a plurality of
`channels in response to instructions. Id. at 3: 23–29. Server controller 22 in
`server computer 12 controls VOD server 11 by sending commands through
`serial transmission line 17, e.g., an RS232C interface. Id. at 4:7–9. Server
`computer 12 and client computer 13 are connected through a network, such
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`as the Internet. Id. at 3:46–48. Client computer 13 includes parallel
`input/output (PIO) controller 26 and browser 27 for accessing a WWW
`server on the Internet. Id. at 4:38–40. PIO controller 26 controls switcher
`15 at commands from WWW server 21. Id. at 4:47–49. File disk 24 stores
`HTML documents with control codes for implementing a user interface via
`WWW browser 27. When a control code for controlling VOD server 11 is
`included in an HTML document distributed via network 18 from WWW
`server 21, WWW browser 27 sends to WWW server 21 a request via
`network 18 for controlling VOD server 11. Id. at 4:55–5:2. WWW server
`21 sends the control request to server interface 23; server 23 provides an
`instruction to server controller 22 for executing the control request; and
`server controller 22 sends a command to VOD server 11 through serial
`transmission line 17. Id. at 5:2–8.
`Analysis of Claim 1
`
`a. 1[Preamble] A video-on demand system
`comprising
`Petitioner contends that Sampsell discloses a VOD system under
`Patent Owner’s claim construction because Sampsell discloses operating a
`system that provides video on demand. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:29– 40 as
`describing video provided on demand including computer television,
`standard television or any other audio source, and 7:27– 8:9, as describing a
`remote control for controlling and providing video on demand). Petitioner
`further contends that Sampsell discloses a VOD system under the Comcast
`court’s construction because Sampsell’s docking station is not a set-top box
`that provides remote control of the VOD system. Id. at 27.
`Petitioner further argues that to the extent Sampsell does not disclose
`a VOD system, Yosuke teaches this limitation. Id. at 28–29 (citing Ex.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`1006, 3:20–26). Yosuke explicitly states it “relates to an apparatus for
`providing specific information on demand” and discusses VOD systems.
`See, Ex. 1006, 1:6–2:36.
`As discussed above, the expression “video-on-demand” in the
`preamble gives life and meaning to the claim and is limiting. Patent Owner
`does not dispute explicitly Petitioner’s characterization of Sampsell and
`Yosuke as VOD systems. It is not clear that Sampsell alone discloses a
`video-on-demand system. However, Yosuke expressly states it is a video-
`on-demand system. For purposes of institution, we are persuaded that
`Petitioner has demonstrated that the combination of Sampsell and Yosuke
`discloses a video on demand system.
`b. 1[A] a first communication interface configured to
`transfer first video signals to a first
`communication system using a first bandwidth
`Reproduced below is Figure 1 of Sampsell, as annotated in the
`Petition to show the elements in Sampsell Petitioner contends correspond to
`the claimed “first communication interface.” Pet. 29–30. According to
`Petitioner, the first communication interface “may include controller 106
`and processing circuitry 100,”4 and the claimed “first communication
`system” “may include connections between controller 106, processing
`circuity 110 and display 114.”
`
`
`4 Petitioner’s textual reference to processing circuitry “100” appears to be a
`typographical error, as processing circuitry 110 is highlighted in Petitioner’s
`annotated Figure 1.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`
`
`
`Pet. 29–30.
`Petitioner argues Sampsell teaches that in response to a user control
`signal selected by VCR controller 160 that essentially determines the mode
`of operation of system 150, controller 106 selects image signals from image
`sources 102 and 104 and transmits these image signals to either transmitter
`108 for display on image screen 156 or external processing circuitry 110 for
`display on display 114. Pet. 30– 31 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:43–49).
`Petitioner also cites Yosuke as disclosing that a VOD server can
`transmit video signals, in response to instructions from a client, over a first
`transmission line 19 (the claimed “first communication system”) or a second
`transmission line 18 (the claimed “second communication system”). Id. at
`31 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:26– 38, 12:34– 42, Fig. 1).
`Patent Owner does not dispute explicitly Petitioner’s contention that
`the combination of Sampsell and Yosuke discloses claim element 1[A]. For
`purposes of institution, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated
`that the combination of Sampsell and Yosuke discloses claim element 1[A].
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`
`c. 1[B] a second communication interface configured
`to transfer a control screen signal and second
`video signals to a second communication system
`using a second bandwidth that is less than the first
`bandwidth
`Reproduced below is another annotated version from the Petition of
`Sampsell’s Figure 1 showing the elements in Sampsell Petitioner contends
`correspond to the claimed “second communication interface” and “second
`communication system.” Pet. 32.
`
`
`Id. According to Petitioner the claimed “second communication interface”
`“may include transmitter 108, IR transmitter 116, and control receiver 112,”
`and the claimed “second communication system . . . may include receiver
`152, IR receiver 310, control transmitter 164.” Id.
`Petitioner repeats its assertion above that Sampsell discloses controller
`106 is used to select image signals from image sources 102 and 104 in
`response to a user control signal selected by VCR controller 160 and
`transmit image signals from sources 102, 104 to either transmitter 108 for
`display on image screen 156 or external processing circuitry 110 for display
`on display 114. Id. As to the claimed “control screen signals,” Petitioner
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01135
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`states “[t]he image sources in Sampsell provide control screen signals like
`‘television-type tuners’ and ‘image data’ transferred to the remote control
`170.” Id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:46–60). Petitioner further contends
`that the image signals in Sampsell “define the control screen” because they
`are “displayed on the image screen.” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:58– 59,
`Figs. 3–5). According to Petitioner, “Sampsell confirms the second
`communications interface is responsible for transferring the control screen
`signal to the second communication system, because image processor 172
`outputs the control screen signal from image sources 102 and 104 to the
`VCR 170.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 4:12–16).
`The subject matter cited by Petitioner refers to image sources that
`have television type tuners within them, e.g., television 200 and VCR 206.
`Ex. 101 7:45–47. A laser disc that generates image data it send
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
