PTAB

IPR2017-01050

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 describes a system where a user can operate a remote interactive television program guide (IPG) on a mobile device to schedule recordings on local user television equipment. The remote IPG communicates with a local IPG over the Internet, sending instructions to record selected programs.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Blake and Killian - Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-18 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 teaches an interactive television system where a user, while away from home, can use a remote device (e.g., a laptop or cellular phone, which are "mobile devices") to schedule a program recording on a local recording device (e.g., a VCR). Blake’s system involves the remote device sending a recording request to a central processing system, which in turn activates the local recording equipment at the appropriate time. Petitioner asserted this maps to the claimed local guide, remote guide on a mobile device, and guide-to-guide communication, especially under the broader claim construction for "local guide" advanced by the Patent Owner in separate litigation. Blake also disclosed generating a remote display based on user theme selections, which Petitioner contended met the "user profile" limitation. To the extent Blake's theme selection was insufficient, Killian was introduced. Killian explicitly taught using stored "user profiles" (which could be stored remotely) to filter program listings and customize IPG displays.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Killian's established user profile technology with Blake's remote recording system for the predictable purpose of enhancing user experience. Implementing Killian’s user profiles would allow Blake’s system to better track a user's specific preferences beyond broad themes, generate more effective user interfaces, and provide users with better access to desired content, which were all known goals in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. It involved applying a known technique (Killian's user profiles) to improve a similar system (Blake's remote guide) to achieve the predictable result of a more personalized and efficient remote recording system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Blake, Killian, and Lawler - Claims 2 and 11 are obvious over Blake in view of Killian and in further view of 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 built upon the combination of Blake and Killian to address the additional limitation of claims 2 and 11, which required recording the selected program "at a television distribution facility." The base combination of Blake and Killian taught a remote scheduling system using local, in-home recording. Lawler was introduced because it explicitly taught a program recording system that used a central recording device at a head-end (i.e., a television distribution facility) to record and store programs for multiple users. This centralized, network-based recording was presented as an alternative to individual, local recording devices.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to modify the Blake/Killian system by substituting its local recording component with Lawler's centralized recording architecture. Lawler taught that centralized recording was advantageous because it allowed multiple subscribers to access a single recording without needing separate, individual recorders. A POSITA would have sought to gain these same efficiencies and benefits by applying Lawler's known technique to the Blake/Killian system.
    • Expectation of Success: The modification would have been a simple substitution of one known recording method (local) for another (centralized) to obtain the predictable benefits described in Lawler. The integration was straightforward, as it only changed the location of the recording and storage function, a well-understood design choice at the time.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner’s argument relied heavily on a specific construction for "local interactive television program guide." Petitioner argued that during prosecution of a related application, the Patent Owner narrowly defined the "local guide" to be only on user-premises equipment to overcome prior art like Blake.
  • However, in a subsequent ITC Investigation, the Patent Owner argued for a much broader construction, asserting that the "local guide" could be met by software implemented in part on equipment located outside the user premises, such as a central server.
  • For the purposes of the IPR, Petitioner requested the Board adopt the Patent Owner's broader litigation-based construction. Under this broader view, Blake's central processing system, which receives remote recording requests, would be considered part of the "local guide," thereby causing Blake to read directly on the key claim limitation of a communication from the remote guide to the local guide.

5. Relief Requested

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