PTAB

IPR2018-00345

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. PROMPTU SYSTEMS CORPORATION

Title: System and Method of Voice Recognition Near a Wireline Node of a Network Supporting Cable Television and/or Video Delivery
Brief Description: The ’196 patent discloses a system for providing voice control within a cable television or video delivery network. The core technology involves a speech recognition processor centrally located at or near a "wireline node," such as a cable headend, to process voice commands received from a multiplicity of user sites over an upstream "back channel."

Prior Art Relied Upon: Murdock (Patent 7,013,283), Nazarathy (Patent 6,490,727), and Quigley (Patent 6,650,624).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Murdock discloses the core elements of the independent claims, including a voice-controlled system for a cable television network. In Murdock, voice commands from multiple user sites are sent via a "back channel" to a remote server computer (the claimed "wireline node") for speech recognition and fulfillment. Murdock explicitly taught multiplexing signals from multiple users onto this back channel.
- Motivation to Combine: While Murdock taught multiplexing voice commands from multiple users, it lacked detail on how to demultiplex these signals at the central server. Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Murdock’s system with the well-known demultiplexing techniques taught by Nazarathy (TDM/WDM demultiplexing) or Quigley (TDMA demultiplexing) to solve the obvious problem of separating the multiplexed user signals for processing.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as this combination involved applying a standard signal processing technique (demultiplexing) to a known system type (voice-controlled cable network) to achieve the predictable result of efficiently managing multiple user inputs and avoiding signal collisions.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Julia (Patent 6,513,063), Nazarathy (Patent 6,490,727), and Quigley (Patent 6,650,624).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Julia, like Murdock, discloses a system for navigating network-based data using spoken commands. Julia describes voice commands from a user's remote control being transmitted over a network to a remote server for speech recognition, with the system designed to support queuing and multi-tasking of requests from multiple simultaneous users.
- Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine Julia with Nazarathy or Quigley was argued to be the same as with Murdock. To implement Julia's contemplated support for multiple simultaneous users, a POSITA would naturally turn to known, efficient methods for handling multiple upstream signals, such as the demultiplexing techniques disclosed in Nazarathy and Quigley.
- Expectation of Success: Implementing Julia's voice control system on the established network architectures of Nazarathy or Quigley was argued to be a predictable way to improve the user interface and reap benefits like increased bandwidth.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Murdock (Patent 7,013,283) or Julia (Patent 6,513,063), in view of Banker (Patent 5,477,262) or Gordon (Patent 6,314,573).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: These dependent claims add limitations related to financial transactions (e.g., assessing a response to create a financial consequence, billing the user). Petitioner argued that Murdock and Julia's disclosure of voice-controlled video-on-demand inherently suggests such transactions. Banker and Gordon explicitly teach the detailed steps of pay-per-view and on-demand purchasing systems, including assessing user input, confirming purchases, and billing.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the voice-controlled on-demand features of Murdock or Julia would be motivated to incorporate the established transaction and user interface methods from Banker or Gordon. This would ensure reliable and secure purchasing and provide a familiar user experience, representing a combination of known elements for predictable results.

“wireline node”: Petitioner proposed this term be construed as “a network node providing video or cable television delivery to multiple users over physical wires between the node and the multiple user locations.” This broad construction was central to mapping prior art references like Murdock’s “remote server computer” and a cable system’s “headend” to the claimed node.
“back channel”: Petitioner argued this term means an “upstream communication channel delivering signals from multiple user sites to a central wireline node.” This construction aligns with standard industry usage and facilitates mapping the upstream data paths in the prior art to the claims.
“partitioning said received back channel”: Petitioner contended this phrase should be broadly interpreted to include any technique for dividing a communication channel into identifiable portions. This was critical to the argument that well-known techniques like demultiplexing, as taught by Nazarathy and Quigley, meet this limitation.

Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 14-15, 17-19, 25-26, 53-55, 61-62, and 64-66 of the ’196 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.