PTAB

IPR2017-00866

Comcast Cable Communications LLC v. Rovi Guides Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Interactive Program Guide Systems and Processes
  • Brief Description: The ’595 patent describes a system, method, and non-transitory medium for using an interactive television program guide (IPG) to control two separate tuners within a set-top box. This configuration allows a user to simultaneously record one television program while viewing another.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lett and Granger - Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17-22 are obvious over Lett in view of Granger.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lett (Patent 5,592,551) and Granger (Patent 5,483,277).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lett disclosed all essential elements of an IPG, including receiving program schedule information, storing it in memory, displaying a guide, and allowing user selections to watch or record programs. Critically, Lett explicitly contemplated an embodiment with "more than one tuner" to provide "watch/record modes," but only illustrated a single-tuner terminal. Petitioner contended that Granger remedied this by disclosing a set-top converter with two tuners specifically designed to enable simultaneous viewing of one channel and recording of another. The combination of Lett’s IPG control system with Granger’s dual-tuner hardware architecture allegedly rendered the independent claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), seeking to implement the multi-tuner "watch/record mode" expressly suggested by Lett, would have been motivated to look to known multi-tuner solutions like Granger. Granger addressed the known challenges of using multiple single-tuner boxes and provided a direct, integrated solution. Applying Granger’s established dual-tuner set-top converter design to Lett's IPG system was presented as a predictable step to improve Lett's functionality.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that combining these known elements would have been straightforward for a POSITA. Integrating a second tuner into a set-top box terminal as taught by Granger was a well-understood modification that would predictably achieve the desired simultaneous watch/record capability suggested by Lett.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Strubbe and Lett - Claims 1-24 are obvious over Strubbe in view of Lett.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Strubbe (Patent 5,047,867) and Lett (Patent 5,592,551).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Strubbe disclosed the core hardware configuration: an integrated unit with two tuners, where one tuner’s output was connected to a television monitor and the other to a VCR, enabling simultaneous watch/record functionality. However, Strubbe’s user interface was primitive, requiring manual data entry and navigation of menu pages. Petitioner asserted that Lett disclosed the modern IPG functionality missing from Strubbe, including receiving program data automatically, displaying a user-friendly grid guide, and allowing direct program selection for viewing or recording. The combination of Strubbe's dual-tuner hardware with Lett's advanced IPG software allegedly rendered all challenged claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to replace Strubbe's cumbersome manual program entry and menu-based navigation with the far more efficient and user-friendly IPG taught by Lett. Doing so would automate the process of populating the program guide and provide a faster method for selecting programs, representing a significant and obvious improvement. Furthermore, Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to implement Strubbe’s integrated system as a standalone set-top box (as commonly used in Lett) to work with a user's existing television and VCR, rather than as a fully integrated TV/VCR unit.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended there was a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. Modifying Strubbe’s system to decode and display IPG data from Lett, and to use Lett’s IPG to control Strubbe’s existing tuners, involved applying known techniques to a known system to achieve predictable results.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional ground of obviousness for dependent claims 7-8, 15-16, and 23-24 over the combination of Lett, Granger, and Young (Patent 4,706,121). This combination argued that while Lett-Granger provided the core multi-tuner IPG, Young taught the specific claimed features of creating, displaying, and managing a "recording list" of scheduled programs.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "interactive television program guide" (IPG): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a set of screen displays, at least one of them presenting schedule information for television programs, and at least one screen display being responsive to user input." This construction was argued to be consistent with the patent’s description of a "full-featured" guide using multiple screens and its distinction from non-interactive, scrolling guides.
  • "set-top box": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a device that receives and outputs TV signals and that is capable of being connected to and physically located in the same vicinity as a TV or VCR, but not required to be physically located on top of the TV." This construction was intended to be broad enough to cover various terminal configurations known in the art.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-24 of Patent 8,713,595 as unpatentable.