PTAB

IPR2017-00952

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 describes a system where a remote interactive television program guide (IPG), implemented on a mobile device, communicates over the Internet with a local IPG to schedule program recordings on local equipment. The remote guide generates its display based on a user profile stored at a location remote from the mobile device.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

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

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Blake (WO 98/10589) and Killian (Patent 6,163,316).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Blake disclosed the core architecture of the claimed invention. Blake taught a system with a local IPG and a remote interface on a mobile device (e.g., laptop or cellular phone) used to remotely schedule recordings on local hardware. In Blake, the remote device communicates a recording request to a central processing system, which in turn activates the local recording equipment. Petitioner asserted that Killian supplied the limitation of generating the remote guide's display based on a user profile. Killian taught using stored user profiles—which could be located remotely on the Internet—to filter program listings and customize guide displays for individual users.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Killian's established user profile technology with Blake's remote recording system to improve its functionality. This combination would yield the predictable result of a more personalized user experience and better filtering of program listings, allowing users to more easily find desired content to record remotely.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in this combination, as it involved applying a known technique (user profiles for content filtering) to improve a similar system (a remote guide with basic filtering) to achieve a predictable outcome.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner's argument hinged on the Patent Owner's own broad construction of "local guide" from a related ITC proceeding, which encompassed off-site equipment like a central server. Petitioner argued that under this construction, the communication in Blake from the remote device to the central processing system constituted the claimed "guide-to-guide" communication, overcoming distinctions the Patent Owner made during original prosecution.

Ground 2: Claims 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 are obvious over Blake in view of Killian and Lawler.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Blake (WO 98/10589), Killian (Patent 6,163,316), and Lawler (Patent 5,805,763).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims requiring that the program be recorded "at a television distribution facility." The combination of Blake and Killian, as established in Ground 1, taught a system for remotely scheduling recordings on local user equipment. Petitioner argued that Lawler taught the missing element: a system that uses a central recording device at a head-end (i.e., a distribution facility) to record programs for multiple users. The recorded program is then stored centrally and can be retrieved on demand by users.
    • Motivation to Combine: Lawler explicitly described the advantages of centralized recording over local recording, such as allowing multiple subscribers to access a single recorded copy without needing separate recorders. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify the Blake/Killian system by substituting the local recording location with Lawler's centralized recording architecture to gain these known efficiencies and benefits.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination represented a simple substitution of one known component (local recording hardware) with another known component (centralized recording hardware) to achieve the predictable advantages taught by Lawler.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "local interactive television program guide": This was the central construction dispute. Petitioner argued that the Board should adopt the broad interpretation that the Patent Owner itself advanced in a parallel ITC Investigation. In that proceeding, the Patent Owner argued that the "local guide" could be implemented on equipment that includes servers or other devices located outside the user's home. Petitioner contended that under this broad construction—which contradicted the narrower position taken during prosecution to overcome Blake—Blake's central processing system would be considered part of the "local guide." Consequently, the communication from Blake's remote device to its central processing system would satisfy the "guide-to-guide" communication limitation of the challenged claims.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’263 patent as unpatentable.