PTAB

IPR2017-01143

Comcast Cable Communications LLC v. Rovi Guides Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Interactive Television Program Guide With Remote Access
  • Brief Description: The ’801 patent describes a system where a user can remotely access a television program guide over the Internet to schedule recordings on local user equipment. The system uses a "remote guide" that communicates with a "local guide" to facilitate this functionality.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Blake and Killian - Claims 1-54 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 an interactive television system that allows a user to employ a remote interface (a "remote guide") to schedule recordings on a local device. In Blake's system, the remote device communicates user selections to a central processing system, which in turn activates the local recording equipment. Petitioner asserted that under the Patent Owner's own broad interpretation of "local guide" from a related International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation—which includes remote servers that support the local guide—Blake's central processing system is part of the "local guide." Consequently, the communication from Blake's remote device to its central server met the claim limitation of a communication from the remote guide "to the local guide." Killian was cited as teaching conventional interactive program guide (IPG) features, such as generating customized guide displays based on user profile information stored locally, which could be used to supplement Blake's system.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Blake and Killian to improve a known system with predictable results. Petitioner contended it would have been obvious to implement Blake’s remote interface using the conventional IPG features taught by both Blake's local guide and Killian to provide a more user-friendly graphical interface for selecting programs. Further, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Killian’s use of locally stored user profiles into Blake’s system to better track user preferences and provide more relevant, theme-filtered program listings, enhancing the user experience. Using the Internet for communication, as taught by Killian, was argued to be a predictable solution for connecting Blake's remote and local components.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these references. Implementing known IPG functionalities from Killian into Blake’s remote access system involved applying established techniques to a similar device to achieve predictable improvements in usability and personalization.
    • Key Aspects: The core of this ground rested on leveraging the Patent Owner's broad claim construction of "local guide" from a parallel ITC litigation. Petitioner argued that this broad construction, adopted for infringement purposes, directly implicated Blake's architecture, which the applicant had previously distinguished during prosecution by arguing for a narrower construction limited to equipment at the user's premises.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner noted that this petition was one of three filed against the ’801 patent and that this ground was not redundant over grounds asserted in the other petitions, which included challenges based on Humpleman (Patent 6,182,094), Kondo (Japanese application), Sato (Patent 6,408,435), and Woo (Patent 5,485,219).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that several key terms should be given their broadest reasonable construction, highlighting the term "local guide" as critical to its invalidity argument.
  • "Local Guide": Petitioner requested that the Board adopt the same construction for "local guide" that the Patent Owner advocated for in a parallel ITC investigation. Under that construction, the "local guide" is not limited to equipment at the user's premises but can also include remote components, such as a data server, that provide guide information or functionality. This construction was central to Petitioner's argument that Blake’s central processing system was part of the "local guide," thereby satisfying 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 1-54 of the ’801 patent as unpatentable.