Paper No. 9
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Date: December 9, 2019
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2019-01137
`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, 37 C.F.R. § 42.4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Date: December 9, 2019
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2019-01137
`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, 37 C.F.R. § 42.4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01137
`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. 77. 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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01137
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`Optimum-Cablevision, and Altice USA, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-01919-UNA
`(D. Del.). Pet. 77.
`Petitioner identifies the following additional petitions filed against the
`’7907 patent: IPR2019-01135 and IPR2019-01139. Id. at 77–78.
`Petitioner identifies the following petitions filed against related U.S.
`patent 6,754,907 (“the ’4907 patent”): IPR2019-01136, IPR2019-01138,
`and IPR2019-01140. Id. at 78.
`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
`As shown in Figure 1, VOD system 100 includes (i) a processing
`system 103, (ii) first communications interface 101 to first communications
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01137
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01137
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01137
`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.
`7,913,278
`European Patent No.
`EP 0 872 987 A2
`WO 92/22983
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,182,094
`
`
`Designation
`Ellis
`
`Yosuke
`Browne
`Humpleman
`
`Exhibit No.
`Ex. 1008
`
`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
`35 U.S.C. §
`Ellis, Yosuke
`103
`Ellis, Yosuke, Browne
`103
`Ellis, Yosuke, Humpleman
`103
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`Petitioner defines a person of ordinary skill as having “held 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. 22. Petitioner’s undisputed definition of the
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01137
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`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 June 3, 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 v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at 1312 (“the words of a claim
`are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning”) (citations and
`internal quote 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.
`Importantly, 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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01137
`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. 16 (citing Comcast Order at 42.)
`Petitioner identifies additional terms construed by the court, stating
`the Petitioner supports the district court’s constructions. Pet. 13–16. 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. 22–23, n. 5. Petitioner
`contends that we need not resolve disputed claim constructions “because the
`claims read on the prior art under either Sprint’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. Neither the
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01137
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01137
`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 “the 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 for 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 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 communication 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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01137
`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 court declined to adopt Patent Owner’s
`proposed construction, i.e., plain and ordinary meaning or “a signal
`reflecting viewer control” and instead construed “viewer 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. at 15, n. 3. Neither the parties nor the
`district court addresses the meaning of “viewer control signal.”
`Referring to Figure 1, the Specification states “[i]n response to viewer
`input to the control screen, the second display 122 transfers a corresponding
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01137
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`viewer control signal to the second communication system 112,” the second
`communication system 112 transfers the viewer control signal to the second
`communications interface,” and “[t]he second communication interface
`transfers the [viewer] control signal to the processing system 130.” 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. 15–16. 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. 16. The independent claims
`have separate steps for transferring the control screen and video content
`signals. Likewise, the ’7907 patent’s specification is replete with instances
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01137
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`describing the control screen as something other than video content. See,
`e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:37–53 (noting the distinction drawn between the control
`screen and the menu it provides to allow the viewer to watch video content);
`id. at 1:26–28 (describing various video content types), id., 1:64–2:3 (noting
`that the “video-on-demand system implements a viewer control selection
`indicated by the video control signal”) (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 This construction is consistent with and informed by our construction of
`“video-on-demand” above.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01137
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`(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).
`Claim 1 As Obvious Over Ellis and Yosuke
`A.
`Ellis – Ex. 1008
`1.
`Ellis is directed to a remote interactive television program guide. Ex.
`1008, 1:19–21. Television program guides allow a user to view a list of
`television programming, instead of having to consult printed program
`guides. Id. at 1:23–36. In Ellis, the program guide is available on the
`television as well as from a remote location. Id. at 2:19–28, 32–46. Ellis
`discloses a remote access interactive television program guide implemented
`on a remote program guide access device. Ex. 1009, Abstract, 2:39–41.
`Through a remote access link users remotely access any interactive
`television program guide function or setting on the interactive television
`program guide equipment. Id. at 2:38–41, 48–49.
`Figure 2b of Ellis, reproduced below, shows an illustrative
`arrangement for the interactive television program guide equipment and
`remote program access device:
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01137
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`
`
`Figure 2b of Ellis shows that both the user television equipment 22
`and remote program guide access device 24 receive the program guide from
`interactive television distribution facility 16. Program guide distribution
`equipment 21 distributes the program guide data. Id. at 5:1–12. The
`program guide data is sent to user television equipment 22 over
`communication path 20, i.e., television channels. Id. at 5:9–12. The
`program guide data is sent to remote program guide access device 24 over
`remote access link 19 via communication device 27. Id. at 6:37–47.
`Remote program guide access device 24 connects via remote access link to
`communications device 27 of television distribution facilities 16. Id. at Fig.
`2b.
`
`Remote program guide access device 24 allows the user to interact
`with the television program guide, as well as “to access various functions of
`the interactive program guide (e.g., reminder information, parental control
`settings, favorite channel settings, user profiles, etc.).” Id. at 5:37–39
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01137
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`(describing the interactive guide), 5:55–57 (describing the other functions);
`see also id. at 12:4–55 (describing an embodiment where remote device 24
`is a PC). The user of remote program guide access device 24 may also be
`able to order pay-per-view programs, remotely view video and audio that is
`being distributed to the local television program guide or that has been
`stored on user television equipment 22, control television equipment 22
`remotely. Id. at 18:59–19:19, 20:10–16.
`Yosuke
`2.
`Yosuke discloses a system in which a client uses a browser to access
`an HTML document that includes a control code for controlling a VOD
`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
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01137
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`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
`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; server
`controller 22 sends a command to VOD server 11 through serial
`transmission line 17. Id. at 5:2–8.
`Analysis
`3.
`Petitioner asserts the “remote program guide access device in Ellis
`does not have a single use, but instead displays video-on-demand on the
`remote program guide access device and/or on the television, as well as
`controls other devices (‘personal computer’ or ‘multiple installations of user
`television equipment 22 within the home connected via an in-home
`network’).” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1008, 8:51–9:7).
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01137
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`1[Preamble] A video-on demand system
`a)
`comprising
`As discussed above, we consider the preamble to give life and
`meaning to the claims of the ’7907 patent and therefore to limit the claims to
`a video-on-demand (VOD) system. As to the preamble, Petitioner contends
`that Ellis discloses a VOD system because the user may select to play a
`program in real time via the local and remote guides, or to play a stored
`program. Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1008, 25:67–26:2). Petitioner further states that
`Ellis is a VOD under the Comcast court’s construction because some
`embodiments of Ellis do not require a set-top box. Id. at 26–27. Petitioner
`further argues that Ellis discloses VOD under Patent Owner’s construction
`because Ellis discloses operating a system that provides video-on-demand.
`Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1008, 2:47–60, 4:40–53, 25:4–18). Petitioner’s citations
`to Ellis refer specifically to pay-per-view programming. Ex. 1008, 4:40–53,
`25:4–18.
`There is no indication in the record before us that Ellis provides
`anything other than standard television. The program guide merely displays
`what content is going to be displayed at a given time. See Ex. 1008, 1:23–
`36. There is no indication in the record before us that the content in Ellis is
`able to be played on demand, i.e. at the time of the user chooses, and
`controlled by the user while that content is played. Thus, we do not find
`Ellis to disclose the claimed control screen signal. We acknowledge that
`Ellis allows ordering of pay-per-view programs (id. at 18:26–41) or playing
`of stored programs (id. at 25:63–26:14), but we have no evidence that
`suggests pay-per-view content has playback control, and we do not have
`evidence that playing locally recorded or stored video would have been
`understood to be video-on-demand. Reviewing the Petition, we determine
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01137
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`that the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how Ellis describes the
`video-on-demand system recited in the preamble.
`As Petitioner cites Yosuke as disclosing a VOD system that provides
`video signals in response to instructions from clients made on a touch panel
`through a plurality of channels without using a set-top box for remote
`control (Pet. 27–28), we consider the teachings of Yosuke.
`1[A] a first communication interface configured to
`b)
`transfer first video signals to a first communication
`system using a first bandwidth
`As to claim element 1[A] Petitioner cites Ellis’s program guide
`distribution equipment 21 as the claimed “first communication interface”
`because it receives video signals from source main facility 12 and transfers
`those video signals to user television equipment 22 over communication
`path 20, i.e., the claimed “first communication system.” Pet. 28–29.
`Petitioner also notes that in Ellis, video television signals (the “video
`signals”) are sent to display device 45 in response to a user instructed viewer
`control signal. Id. at 30. Petitioner further notes that Yosuke discloses, in
`response to client instructions, a VOD server can transmit video signals over
`first transmission line 19 (the claimed first communications system) or
`second transmission line 18 (the claimed second communications system)
`using a high bandwidth transmission medium (the first bandwidth). Id. at
`30–31 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:26–38, 12:34–42, Fig. 1).
`1[B] a second communication interface configured
`c)
`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
`As to claim element 1[B], Petitioner contends the Ellis discloses a
`control screen signal in the form of program guide information displayed on
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01137
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`a display screen to a user, e.g., remotely on a monitor, LCD, or other display
`device. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1008, 14:3–12, 20:67–21:3). Identifying the
`claimed “second communication interface” as including program guide
`distribution equipment 21 and communications device 27 collectively,
`Petitioner argues that Ellis’s program guide information and indicated
`program guide functions (the claimed “control screen signal”) is transferred
`via remote link 19, which Petitioner identifies as the claimed “second
`communication system,” to remote access device 24. The first and second
`communication interfaces, as annotated in the Petition, are shown side by
`side below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s annotation of
`component in Ellis Fig. 2b
`corresponding to claimed first
`communication interface.
`
`Petitioner’s annotation of
`components 21, 27 in Ellis Fig.
`2b corresponding to claimed
`second communication interface.
`
`
`
`Pet. 29, 32. As shown on the left side of the illustration above, as to Ellis,
`Petitioner identifies the claimed first communications interface as program
`guide distribution equipment 21 sending video signals over communication
`system 20 to user television equipment 22; as shown on the right side of the
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01137
`Patent 6,757,907 B1
`illustration above, Petitioner identifies the claimed second communication
`interface as program guide equipment 21 and communications device 27,
`collectively, sending signals over second communication system 19 to
`remote program access device 24.
`Patent Owner contends that Ellis does not disclose a control screen
`signal, as that term has been construed by agreement of the parties in the
`Comcast case, because Petitioner cites no evidence that Ellis describes any
`“signal that defines a control screen” being transferred to the alleged second
`communication system via the alleged second communication interface.
`Prelim. Resp. 35. Patent Owner argues that program guide data is
`information about t
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
