PTAB

IPR2017-01877

Comcast Cable Communications LLC v. OpenTV Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Interactive Television System and Method for Converting Non-Textual Information to Textual Information by a Remote Server
  • Brief Description: The ’389 patent discloses an interactive television (ITV) system that allows a user to control an application on a set-top box using non-textual input, such as voice or handwriting. The system addresses the limited processing power of set-top boxes by offloading the conversion of this non-textual input into textual data to a powerful remote server, which then returns the text to the set-top box application. A key feature, added during prosecution, is the delivery of the interactive application code to the set-top box via a broadcast signal.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Houser - All challenged claims (1-3, 5, 9-11, 13-17, 21, and 22) are obvious over Houser.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Houser (Patent 5,774,859).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Houser, which was not cited during prosecution, teaches all elements of the challenged claims. Houser discloses an interactive television system with a speech interface that allows users to control the system with voice commands. It explicitly teaches a client-server architecture where speech recognition processing can be performed either on the local terminal unit (set-top box) or, crucially, on a remote server ("node 517"). Petitioner asserted that Houser also discloses broadcasting application code ("software including game programs") to its terminal units and teaches interactive applications that require textual input (e.g., keyword searches). For limitations in dependent claims, such as the use of a microphone, Houser was alleged to provide explicit disclosure.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As a single-reference ground, the motivation was inherent in Houser's own teachings. Petitioner argued Houser itself suggests the claimed configuration by disclosing both a primary embodiment with local processing and a variation with remote server processing, making the choice to implement the remote server configuration obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Houser in view of Dragosh - Independent claims 1, 11, and 17 and their dependents are obvious over Houser in view of Dragosh.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Houser (Patent 5,774,859) and Dragosh (Patent 6,078,886).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that to the extent Houser's disclosure of a remote-processing architecture was considered general, Dragosh provided a detailed, well-known implementation of such a system. Houser teaches the overall ITV system with a speech interface and the option for remote processing. Dragosh, while not specific to ITV, details a client-server architecture for providing remote Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) services. Dragosh teaches a client device capturing speech, sending it to a remote ASR server for conversion to text, and receiving the recognized text back for use in a local application (e.g., filling out a pizza order form). The combination of Houser's ITV context with Dragosh's specific client-server ASR method was argued to render the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine the references to improve Houser's system. Both Houser and Dragosh explicitly recognized the problem of insufficient processing power on local client devices for performing speech recognition. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply Dragosh's specific and well-documented client-server solution to Houser's interactive television system to predictably offload the processing burden and improve performance.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because combining the systems was a matter of applying a known technique (Dragosh's remote ASR) to a known system (Houser's ITV) to yield predictable results. Both references contemplated using commercially available speech recognition software, and the specific network type (Houser's TV network vs. Dragosh's packet network) was not critical to the core function of remote speech processing.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claims 11 and 13-16 were also obvious over Houser in view of Menand (Patent 5,563,648) or Fries (Patent 6,317,885). These references were cited to explicitly teach the "transmitting means" limitation of claim 11 by disclosing set-top boxes that included a modem for a return path, a feature Petitioner argued was obvious to add to Houser's system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "receiving station (20)": Petitioner proposed this term means "at least a set-top box, television, and input device." This construction was based on the patent's specification and Figure 1, which explicitly depicts the receiving station (20) as comprising these components.
  • "broadcast signal": Construed according to its explicit definition in the specification as the "transmission of a single signal to all subscribing receivers." This construction was central to distinguishing the invention from prior art that sent device-specific information.
  • "transmitting means" (claim 11): Petitioner argued this is a means-plus-function term governed by 35 U.S.C. §112. The claimed function is "transmitting said non-textual information to said remote server," and the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification is one or more "modems" for sending information over a telephone line.
  • "receiving means (31)" (claim 11): Also argued to be a means-plus-function term. The claimed function is "to receive executable interactive application code ... via a broadcast signal," and the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification is one or more "tuners."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 5, 9-11, 13-17, 21, and 22 of Patent 6,345,389 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.