PTAB

IPR2017-00293

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Personalized Media Communications LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHODS
  • Brief Description: The ’775 patent relates to methods for processing signals at a receiver station. The methods involve embedding digital "code portions" within a larger information transmission (e.g., in the vertical blanking interval of a television signal), which are then decoded to generate video images on a monitor.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Campbell Embodiments - Claims 2-6, 11-12, and 17-18 are obvious over a combination of two embodiments in Campbell.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Campbell (International Publication No. WO 81/02961).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Campbell discloses two distinct embodiments for transmitting data that, when combined, teach every limitation of the challenged claims. The first embodiment teaches sending data in a "contracted" portion of the signal—specifically, within the vertical interval of a television signal. The second embodiment teaches sending data in an "expanded" portion—using nearly the entire video field for a dedicated teletext channel. Petitioner contended that the combination of these two modes, controlled by a signal, meets the claim limitations for processing both "expanded and contracted code portions." For example, Campbell’s receiver station includes a decoder (vertical interval data extractor), a detector (converter control logic), a processor (text/graphics generator), and a video monitor (television set) that perform the claimed steps.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that Campbell itself provides the motivation to combine its embodiments. Campbell explicitly suggests that "some television channels may be dedicated for interactive information retrieval" (the expanded mode) while a subscriber selects a channel "as previously mentioned" (referring to the standard VBI data mode). A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have found it obvious to design a single system capable of switching between standard channels with supplemental data (contracted mode) and all-data channels (expanded mode). Campbell further teaches using a specific "control word" to indicate that a channel is in the full-channel text format, providing the exact mechanism for controlling the decoder to switch between the two modes.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because Campbell discloses both operating modes and the control signal logic needed to switch between them, providing a clear blueprint for the combination.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Campbell and Thonnart - Claims 2-6, 11-13, and 18 are obvious over Campbell in view of Thonnart.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Campbell (WO 81/02961) and Thonnart (Patent 4,413,281).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Campbell discloses a system with two fixed sizes for data transmission (VBI-only or full-frame). Thonnart improves upon this by teaching a system that can dynamically change the number of lines used for digital data transmission based on the needs of the channel. Thonnart discloses that in case of an "imbalance between the digital and analog types of information," the system can deviate from the standard VBI transmission by using an "appropriate logic command." This command allows for optimizing the amount of information transmitted by adjusting the size of the data portion. Combining Campbell's foundational receiver architecture with Thonnart's dynamic sizing capability would result in the claimed invention.
    • Motivation to Combine: The primary motivation was to improve the efficiency and flexibility of the system disclosed in Campbell. A stated goal of the ’775 patent is to make information use at receiver stations "as efficient as possible." Thonnart directly addresses this goal by teaching a method to "optimize" data transmission by dynamically allocating bandwidth, rather than being limited to Campbell’s two rigid modes. A POSITA seeking to improve Campbell's system would have naturally looked to prior art like Thonnart, which is in the same field, to incorporate a more flexible and efficient data transmission scheme.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended the combination would not pose a technical challenge. It would involve augmenting or replacing Campbell's simple on/off "control word" logic with Thonnart's more sophisticated "command logic" to execute dynamic portion sizing. Both references provide the necessary components and logic, making the integration straightforward for a POSITA.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Expanded and Contracted Code Portion": Petitioner argued this term had no well-understood meaning to a POSITA at the time of the invention. Based on the claims and specification, Petitioner proposed the term should be construed to refer to the size of the portion of the signal that carries digital data. An "expanded" portion uses more lines of the incoming transmission (e.g., the full video field), while a "contracted" portion uses fewer lines (e.g., only lines in the vertical interval). This construction was critical to Petitioner's argument that Campbell's two distinct embodiments (full-field vs. VBI) mapped directly onto this key claim limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 2-6, 11-13, and 17-18 of the ’775 patent as unpatentable.