Comcast Cable Communications LLC v. Veveo Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2017-00715
• Patent #: 8,433,696
• Filed: January 19, 2017
• Petitioner(s): Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Veveo, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-31

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method and System for Processing Ambiguous, Multiterm Search Queries
• Brief Description: The ’696 patent discloses a method for processing ambiguous search queries entered on devices with overloaded keypads, such as a 12-key remote control or phone keypad. The system works by pre-associating strings of key presses with subsets of content items, ranking them, and then incrementally displaying results as a user enters an ambiguous query.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Gross and Smith - Claims 1-10, 12-24, and 26-31 are obvious over Gross in view of Smith.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Gross (Application # 2004/0133564) and Smith (Patent 6,529,903).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gross disclosed the core functionality of the claimed invention, including an incremental search method that pre-indexes character strings (including single-character prefixes like "d" and multi-character prefixes like "do") and directly maps them to content items like files and documents. Gross also taught pre-ranking these items before a query is received. However, Gross only suggested its system could be used on a wireless phone without explicitly teaching the overloaded keypad environment. Petitioner asserted that Smith supplied this missing element by disclosing an indexing system specifically designed for ambiguous search queries originating from an overloaded numeric keypad, where alphanumeric terms are translated into their numeric equivalents (e.g., "car" becomes "227").
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have been motivated to combine Gross's incremental, pre-indexed search system with Smith's method for handling ambiguous input from an overloaded keypad. Since Gross's system was intended for devices like wireless phones, which commonly used overloaded keypads, incorporating Smith's well-known technique for that input method would have been a predictable step to improve search functionality and enhance user experience on such devices.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination, as it involved applying a known input disambiguation method (Smith) to a compatible search architecture (Gross) for the intended and disclosed environment (wireless devices).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Gross, Smith, and Robarts - Claims 11 and 25 are obvious over Gross in view of Smith and further in view of Robarts.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Gross (Application # 2004/0133564), Smith (Patent 6,529,903), and Robarts (Patent 8,051,450).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Gross and Smith combination to address the specific limitations of claims 11 and 25, which require the content items to be "television content items" with descriptors like title and cast. While Gross and Smith provided the underlying search methodology, Robarts provided the specific context. Robarts disclosed an interactive television network with an Electronic Program Guide (EPG) that allows users to search for television programs using an overloaded numeric keypad. It explicitly taught searching for program titles within its EPG database.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSA implementing the search system of Gross and Smith would have been motivated to apply it to the specific application of television program searching taught by Robarts. Gross itself disclosed that its system could search databases containing video files (.avi, .mpg), making an EPG database a natural and obvious target for implementation. Applying the combined system to Robarts' EPG would improve the television search experience, a commercially desirable goal.
  • Expectation of Success: Integrating the Gross/Smith search system with Robarts' EPG database would have been a straightforward application of a known system to a specific, well-understood data environment, leading to a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Robarts and Gross - Claims 1-31 are obvious over Robarts in view of Gross.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Robarts (Patent 8,051,450) and Gross (Application # 2004/0133564).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative combination, starting with Robarts as the primary reference. Petitioner argued Robarts taught a system for searching an EPG for television content using incremental character entry from an overloaded keypad. However, Robarts did not explicitly teach pre-associating and pre-ranking subsets of content items with key strings before receiving user input. Gross was asserted to supply these missing features, as it expressly disclosed pre-indexing content by mapping it to character strings (including prefixes) and pre-computing sorted lists based on ranking criteria before a search begins.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSA looking to improve the performance of the Robarts EPG search system would have been motivated to incorporate the pre-indexing and pre-ranking methods from Gross. Doing so would predictably improve the system's efficiency and responsiveness, allowing it to provide search results faster and enhance the user experience, which is a constant goal in system design.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have reasonably expected that adding a known performance-enhancing technique like pre-indexing (from Gross) to an existing search system (Robarts) would successfully yield a faster, more efficient system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "subsets of content items are directly mapped... by a direct mapping": Petitioner argued this phrase, added during prosecution to overcome prior art, should be construed to mean that content items are directly linked to the strings of overloaded keys themselves (e.g., key string "86" is linked to titles with "TO"). This is distinct from systems that first use auto-completion to resolve an ambiguous key string into a full word and then search using that completed word.
• "content item": Petitioner proposed a broad construction of an "identifiable data object," which could be the content itself (e.g., video) or metadata about the content (e.g., a title, document, or television show name).

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-31 of the ’696 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.