PTAB

IPR2017-00951

Comcast Cable Communications LLC v. Rovi Guides Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Interactive Television Program Guide With Remote Access
  • Brief Description: The ’263 patent discloses a system for remotely scheduling television program recordings on local user equipment. The system uses a remote interactive program guide (IPG) on a mobile device that communicates over the Internet with a local IPG to set recordings, with the remote guide being generated based on a user profile stored at a location remote from the mobile device.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 are obvious over Sato in view of Humpleman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sato (Patent 6,408,435) and Humpleman (Patent 6,182,094).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sato disclosed the core elements of the claimed invention. Sato taught an Internet-enabled program guide system where a user could operate a remote portable computer to communicate over the Internet with a local personal computer (PC). This communication allowed the user to view web-based program listings and send commands to the local PC to schedule recordings on local hardware, such as a VTR. This system met the limitations of a remote guide communicating with a local guide to effect recording. However, Sato did not explicitly teach generating the remote guide based on a "user profile." Petitioner asserted that Humpleman supplied this missing element by teaching an improved home network that generates customized HTML program guides based on stored user preferences, such as disfavored channels to be excluded from the guide.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine Humpleman's known user preference and guide customization features with Sato’s remote access system. The motivation was to improve Sato’s system with a known technique to obtain the predictable result of an enhanced and more personalized user experience. Petitioner argued this was a simple substitution of a known, closely-related feature (Humpleman’s customized guides) for another (Sato’s generic web pages) that would provide users with better access to desired content and limit unnecessary data transfer.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have had a high expectation of success in this combination, as it involved applying well-understood web technologies and conventional program guide features to an existing system architecture.

Ground 2: Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 are obvious over Woo in view of Mizuno and Rzeszewski.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Woo (Patent 5,485,219), Mizuno (WO 97/18636), and Rzeszewski (Patent 5,699,125).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Woo disclosed a system for remote recording but did so through an antiquated manual process where a user would phone a human operator at a central control station to program a local recorder. To automate this manual process, Petitioner turned to Mizuno, which taught a controller that serves HTML program guide pages over the Internet to a remote device. Mizuno's system allowed a remote user to browse the guide and send commands directly to control home devices like VCRs, thereby replacing the human operator. To meet the "user profile" limitation, Petitioner cited Rzeszewski, which disclosed a common "favorite station" feature that displays user-selected favorite channels based on stored user profile information.
    • Motivation to Combine: The primary motivation was to automate Woo's inefficient manual call-in system. A POSA would have found it obvious to replace the human operator in Woo with the automated, web-based remote guide taught by Mizuno to improve efficiency, reduce cost, and provide the user with more direct control. This is a classic example of automating a manual process with known technology for predictable benefits. Further, it would have been obvious to add the conventional "favorite station" feature from Rzeszewski to the combined Woo/Mizuno system to improve usability and content filtering.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining these references involved replacing a manual step with a known automated equivalent and adding a standard feature to a program guide, both of which would have been straightforward for a POSA with a high expectation of success.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for the remaining dependent claims. Claims 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 were challenged by adding Lawler (Patent 5,805,763), which taught recording programs at a central "television distribution facility" instead of on local user equipment. Claim 4 was challenged by adding Allport (Patent 6,104,334), which taught storing information indicating which user selected a program for recording, a feature useful for multi-user households.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "local interactive television program guide": Petitioner argued that this term should be given the broad construction that Patent Owner itself had advanced during a prior International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation. In that proceeding, Patent Owner argued that the "local guide" could be implemented on equipment that includes, but is not limited to, equipment in the user’s home. This construction meant the "local" equipment could encompass a remote data server providing guide information. Petitioner requested the Board adopt this broad construction, as it made it easier for prior art systems (like Sato's, with its external broadcast stations) to meet the claim limitations.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review of claims 1-19 of Patent 8,006,263 and cancellation of those claims as unpatentable.