PTAB

IPR2017-01048

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 ’413 patent discloses a system for remotely accessing an interactive television program guide (IPG) over the Internet. A user on a mobile device can access a remote guide, select a program, and transmit a command that instructs a local IPG at the user's home to record the selected program on local equipment.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Humpleman and Killian - Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-18 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 invention: a system allowing a user to remotely access an HTML-based program guide over the Internet to schedule recordings on local equipment, such as a set-top box (STB). Humpleman’s system generates a remote guide based on user preferences (e.g., disfavored channels) stored on the local STB, which constitutes a "user profile" stored remote from the mobile device. To the extent Humpleman did not explicitly detail all interactive features of a modern IPG (e.g., navigating listings, selecting programs), Petitioner asserted Killian supplied these missing elements. Killian taught a conventional interactive guide application on a television receiver with APIs to control recording hardware, and disclosed using user profiles (stored locally or on the Internet) to customize guide displays.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would combine these references as a simple substitution of a known element (Killian's interactivity) to improve a similar device (Humpleman's system). Humpleman expressly taught its system was interoperable with conventional hardware and applications. A POSA would have been motivated to incorporate Killian’s well-known interactive features and API-based control into Humpleman’s framework to provide expected functionality and a better user experience.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a high expectation of success, as combining known interactive software features with a remote-access system was a predictable way to improve usability.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kondo, Killian, and Kawamura - Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-18 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 presented Kondo as disclosing an alternative base system that allowed users to schedule recordings on local equipment over the Internet from a remote terminal (TA1) to a local terminal (TA2). Petitioner asserted that the combination with Killian and Kawamura rendered obvious any features not explicitly taught by Kondo. Killian provided the teachings for robust interactive features and the use of user profiles to filter guide content, as in the first ground. Kawamura specifically taught implementing a remote interactive guide on a mobile device (a "personal data mobile terminal" or PCS), allowing users to select programs for recording on local hardware while "away from home."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would combine these references to achieve predictable results. It would have been obvious to implement Kondo’s remote terminal (TA1) using a modern mobile device as taught by Kawamura to provide users with enhanced flexibility. Likewise, a POSA would improve Kondo’s basic guide-based selection by incorporating the conventional interactive features and user-profile filtering taught by Killian to create a more functional and user-friendly interface.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying known techniques (mobile implementation, interactive UIs) to an existing system architecture, leading to a predictable improvement in functionality and convenience.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against claims 2 and 11, which require recording at a central "television distribution facility." These grounds added Lawler (Patent 5,805,763) to the combinations of Humpleman/Killian and Kondo/Killian/Kawamura. Lawler taught a centralized recording system at a headend as an advantageous substitute for local recording, providing the motivation to modify the primary combinations to include this feature.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "local interactive television program guide": Petitioner argued that, under the broadest reasonable construction, this term refers to an IPG that generates a display for use at the user's premises. Critically, Petitioner requested the Board adopt the Patent Owner's own broad interpretation from a related ITC Investigation, where the Patent Owner argued the "local guide" could be implemented in part on equipment outside the user's home, such as a remote data server that provides guide information. This construction was central to applying prior art where system components are distributed.
  • "mobile device": Petitioner proposed that the broadest reasonable construction is any portable computer-based device, such as a notebook computer or cell phone, as contrasted with stationary devices like desktop computers or servers. This construction allowed Petitioner to map prior art references that discussed remote access from work PCs or general-purpose "communication terminals" to the claimed mobile device.
  • "user profile": Petitioner argued the broadest reasonable construction is any data indicating a user preference. This allowed mapping of prior art that described user-customized channel lists or saved macros for filtering content to the claimed "user profile."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’413 patent as unpatentable.