PTAB

IPR2017-01880

Comcast Cable Communications LLC v. OpenTV Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

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 system that allows a user to provide non-textual input, such as voice or handwriting, via a set-top box. To overcome the limited processing power of the set-top box, this non-textual information is sent to a remote server for conversion into textual data, which is then returned to an interactive application running on the set-top box.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 5, 9-11, 13-17, 21, and 22 are obvious over LaJoie in view of Dragosh.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: LaJoie (Patent 5,850,218) and Dragosh (Patent 6,078,886).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that LaJoie discloses a comprehensive interactive television system with all the foundational elements of the challenged claims, including a headend broadcasting applications and content to set-top terminals (receiving stations) via a broadcast signal. However, LaJoie does not explicitly teach using a remote server to convert non-textual user input (like voice) into text. Petitioner asserted that Dragosh remedies this deficiency by teaching a client-server architecture for automatic speech recognition (ASR). In Dragosh, a local client device captures voice input, sends it to a remote ASR server with greater processing power, receives the converted text back from the server, and provides it to a local application. Petitioner contended that combining LaJoie's interactive TV framework with Dragosh's remote speech processing technology renders all limitations of the independent claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the teachings of LaJoie and Dragosh to improve the user-friendliness of LaJoie’s system. LaJoie’s system required textual input via methods like a remote control, which was cumbersome. Dragosh offered a known solution for implementing a more intuitive voice-based interface. Furthermore, Dragosh specifically addressed the problem of insufficient local processing power for ASR—the same problem the ’389 patent purports to solve for set-top boxes. A POSITA would thus combine the known remote processing technique of Dragosh with the known interactive TV system of LaJoie to create a more functional and user-friendly product.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. Both references describe client-server architectures, and integrating Dragosh's remote speech recognition functionality into LaJoie's interactive TV system would have been a predictable application of known technologies to yield the claimed invention.

Ground 2: Claims 11 and 13-16 are obvious over LaJoie in view of Dragosh and further in view of Menand or Fries.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: LaJoie (Patent 5,850,218), Dragosh (Patent 6,078,886), and either Menand (Patent 5,563,648) or Fries (Patent 6,317,885).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground reinforced the obviousness argument for claim 11, which recites a "transmitting means" for sending non-textual information to the remote server. Petitioner’s construction identified the structure for this means-plus-function element as a modem. While LaJoie does not explicitly disclose a modem in its set-top terminal, Petitioner argued that Menand and Fries both explicitly teach interactive TV set-top boxes that include a modem for establishing a return communication path to a central station.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was to implement the two-way communication necessary for Dragosh’s remote processing within LaJoie’s system. A POSITA would have recognized the need for a return path and would have looked to common, well-known components used for that purpose in set-top boxes at the time. Menand and Fries demonstrated that including a modem was a standard and obvious design choice for providing such a return path. Therefore, modifying LaJoie’s set-top box to include a modem as taught by Menand or Fries to enable the functionality taught by Dragosh was an obvious design choice.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "receiving station (20)" (claim 1): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "at least a set-top box, television, and input device," based on Figure 1 and the specification of the ’389 patent. This construction was important for mapping the "set-top terminals" of LaJoie onto the claimed element.
  • "broadcast signal" (claims 1, 11, 17): Proposed construction was "transmission of a single signal to all subscribing receivers," based on an explicit definition in the ’389 patent specification. This term was central to the patentability argument during prosecution and to Petitioner's obviousness contentions.
  • "non-textual" (claims 1, 11, 16, 17): Proposed construction was "a form handled by the system as something other than a series of alphanumeric characters," based on an explicit definition in the specification. This was key to mapping Dragosh's disclosure of voice data.
  • "receiving means (31)" (means-plus-function, claim 11): Petitioner argued the function is "to receive executable interactive application code ... via a broadcast signal" and the corresponding structure disclosed in the ’389 patent is "tuners."
  • "transmitting means" (means-plus-function, claims 11, 14, 16): Petitioner argued the function is "transmitting said non-textual information to said remote server" and the corresponding structure disclosed in the ’389 patent is "one or more modems." This construction was central to Ground 2.

5. Relief Requested

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