PTAB

IPR2017-00950

Comcast Cable Communications LLC v. Rovi Guides Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Interactive Television Program Guide with Remote Access
  • Brief Description: The ’263 patent describes a system featuring a remotely accessible interactive television program guide (IPG) that communicates over the Internet to schedule recordings on local user equipment. The remote guide, implemented on a mobile device, is generated based on user profile information stored at a location separate from the mobile device.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Humpleman and Killian - Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 are obvious over Humpleman in view of Killian.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Humpleman (Patent 6,182,094) and Killian (Patent 6,163,316).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Humpleman disclosed the core of the claimed system: a local device (a set-top box or "DSS") with a local program guide that also generates an HTML version of the guide for remote access over the Internet. This remote HTML guide allows a user to select a program and schedule a recording on local hardware (e.g., a DVCR) by communicating with the local device. Humpleman further taught that the remote access device could be a mobile device like a laptop computer and that the remote guide could be customized based on user preferences stored locally, which would be remote from the mobile device.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner contended that to the extent Humpleman did not explicitly detail all interactive features of a modern IPG (e.g., navigation, selection, control functions) or sophisticated user profiles, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have looked to a reference like Killian. Killian was presented as teaching conventional interactive guide software, including the use of stored user profiles to filter content. A POSITA would combine Killian's well-known interactive features with Humpleman's system to improve its functionality, a predictable combination that Humpleman’s design for interoperability expressly invited.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success was expected because combining Killian's standard IPG software features with Humpleman’s networked hardware was a simple substitution of known elements to improve a device, yielding the predictable result of a more user-friendly and feature-rich remote recording system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kondo, Killian, and Kawamura - Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 are obvious over Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kondo (Jap. Pat. App. Pub. No. H10-155131), Killian (Patent 6,163,316), and Kawamura (Jap. Pat. App. Pub. No. H09-102827).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Kondo disclosed a system closely mirroring the claimed invention. Kondo taught a remote communication terminal (TA1) that accesses a program guide and sends a recording request over the Internet to a local communication terminal (TA2), which then controls a local video recorder. Petitioner argued this established the claimed two-guide architecture for remote scheduling.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine the Kondo system with Killian and Kawamura to add conventional features. Kawamura was cited for teaching the use of a mobile terminal (e.g., a mobile phone) to access a remote guide and schedule recordings, directly addressing the "mobile device" limitation. Killian was cited for teaching the use of interactive guide features and stored user profiles to customize and filter program listings. A POSITA would combine these references to improve Kondo’s system by allowing more flexible remote access from a mobile device (per Kawamura) and providing a more personalized user experience (per Killian).
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination was argued to be a predictable application of known techniques. Implementing Kondo's remote scheduling on a mobile device as taught by Kawamura, and adding user profile filtering as taught by Killian, were routine improvements that a POSITA would expect to implement successfully to enhance user convenience and functionality.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges adding Lawler (Patent 5,805,763) to the above combinations. Lawler was used to teach the claimed limitation of recording programs at a central "television distribution facility" (i.e., network-based DVR), as an obvious alternative to local recording for claims 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner argued that several key terms should be construed based on their plain meaning and the specification, and highlighted the Patent Owner's previous positions in related litigation.

  • "local interactive television program guide": Petitioner argued for adopting the broad construction that the Patent Owner successfully advocated for in a related ITC Investigation. Under this construction, the "local guide" is not limited to equipment solely within the user's home but can also include components, such as a data server, located outside the user's premises that collectively provide the guide functionality.
  • "mobile device": Any portable computer-based device, such as a notebook computer or cell phone, as contrasted with stationary devices like servers.
  • "user profile": Any data indicating a user preference, not limited to a specific data structure. This can include favorite channels or other user-customized information used to filter or generate a guide display.