PTAB

IPR2017-00293

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Personalized Media Communications, LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHODS
  • Brief Description: The ’775 patent relates to methods for processing signals containing digital data embedded within video transmissions for display on a television screen. The invention describes embedding this data either in unused portions of the signal, such as the vertical blanking interval (VBI), or within the full field of the video transmission.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Grounds 1 & 2: Anticipation and Obviousness over Campbell - Claims 2-6, 11-12, and 17-18 are anticipated by or, in the alternative, obvious over two embodiments disclosed in Campbell.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Campbell (International Publication No. WO 81/02961).
  • Core Argument for these Grounds:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Campbell teaches all limitations of the challenged claims by disclosing two distinct but related embodiments for transmitting data. The first embodiment teaches sending data in a "contracted" manner, using only the otherwise unused lines of the VBI to transmit control data and text data to supplement a normal video program. The second embodiment teaches an "expanded" mode, where a dedicated channel uses nearly the entire video field to transmit "full-channel text format" data, creating a complete textual or graphical display that replaces the standard video image. Petitioner contended that the second, "expanded" embodiment inherently includes the capabilities of the first, thereby anticipating the claims.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As an alternative, Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Campbell’s two embodiments. Campbell itself suggested that a user would want to switch between normal television channels (the first embodiment) and all-data teletext channels (the second embodiment). The combination was presented as a predictable solution to provide a system with dual-mode capability, which was a well-understood design choice at the time.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Campbell provided all the necessary components and a "control word" mechanism for signaling to the decoder whether to operate in the VBI-only mode or the full-channel text mode.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Campbell in view of 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 asserted that Campbell provided the foundational system for processing data embedded in either a "contracted" (VBI) or "expanded" (full-field) portion of a video signal. Thonnart was introduced to teach a more flexible and efficient method of data transmission. Specifically, Thonnart disclosed dynamically adjusting the amount of digital data transmitted by sacrificing synchronism with the analog video signal in response to a "logic command," thereby optimizing the use of channel bandwidth based on the immediate need.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA seeking to improve the efficiency of the system in Campbell would combine it with Thonnart’s teachings. While Campbell taught a binary choice between two fixed-size data portions (VBI or full-field), Thonnart taught a dynamic system that could vary the data portion size to any intermediate level. This combination would achieve greater flexibility and efficiency, a stated goal of the ’775 patent, by allowing the system to transmit an amount of data precisely tailored to the needs of a specific application, rather than being limited to Campbell's two extremes.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination would not pose a technical challenge, as a POSITA could readily augment or replace Campbell's simple "control word" with Thonnart's "command logic" to enable dynamic resizing of the data portion, a straightforward modification.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Expanded and Contracted Code Portion": Petitioner argued this term, which lacked a well-understood meaning, should be construed to refer to the size of the signal portion carrying digital data. A "contracted" portion refers to data embedded in a smaller part of the signal (e.g., the VBI), while an "expanded" portion uses a larger part (e.g., the full video field). This construction was asserted to be consistent with the specification’s description of a "normal-location-search" (in the VBI) and a "full-field-search."
  • "Processor": Petitioner proposed that "processor" be construed simply as a device that operates on data, which could be analog or digital. This construction was based on the plain meaning and supported by Board decisions in related cases. It was argued that nothing in the specification limits processors to operating only on digital data, and some claims (like claim 18) require synchronizing both digitally-generated data and analog video data.
  • "Processor Instruction": Petitioner argued this term should be construed broadly as any digital or analog signal causing a processor to perform an operation, not limited to machine code. This broader construction was proposed because the patentee used more specific terms like "computer program instructions" elsewhere but chose the generic term "processor instruction" in claim 18, implying a broader scope.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should institute review on all asserted grounds to promote a "just, speedy, and inexpensive" resolution. It was noted that the ’775 patent was part of a multi-patent district court litigation against Petitioner. Failing to institute on any ground would risk that ground being litigated in district court, leading to parallel proceedings and undermining finality. Furthermore, presenting alternative grounds based on different potential claim construction readings was argued to be a necessary strategy to ensure a complete review in light of expected disputes with the Patent Owner.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 2-6, 11-13, and 17-18 as unpatentable.