PTAB

IPR2018-00463

NFL Enterprises LLC v. OpenTV Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Supporting Common Interactive Television Functionality Through Presentation Engine Syntax
  • Brief Description: The ’169 patent discloses methods and systems for controlling the presentation of media resources, such as audio, video, and graphics, particularly within interactive television environments. The technology uses "directives" embedded in code to manage when and how content is rendered, including "prerequisite directives" that prohibit a presentation from starting until a specific, essential subset of resources has been fully acquired by the system.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Beri, alone and in combination with Harrington - Claims 1-2, 22-23 are obvious over Beri, with claim 22 further obvious over Beri in view of Harrington.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Beri (Patent 6,141,018), Harrington (Patent 7,120,871).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Beri taught all limitations of claims 1-2 and 23. Beri discloses a method for displaying animated images in a web page "marquee" using an ActiveX object. Petitioner contended that Beri's DrawImmediately parameter functions as the claimed "prerequisite directive." When this parameter is disabled (set to 0), it prohibits the web browser from displaying the marquee until all associated image resources are downloaded, thus meeting the "prohibiting initiation" limitation. Conversely, when the DrawImmediately parameter is enabled, it allows for "progressive rendering" before all resources are downloaded, which Petitioner mapped to the "initiating said presentation" limitation for cases where no prerequisite directive is present. Claim 2 was met because Beri implements its directives using HTML, a markup language.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): For claim 22, Petitioner argued that Harrington supplied the context of an "interactive television system." Harrington discloses a system that integrates web content with broadcast television by pre-fetching and constructing web pages in a hidden "staging area." A POSITA would combine Beri's web page animation technology with Harrington's interactive television framework to solve the known problem of rendering web pages in an integrated TV environment, thereby providing a more engaging user experience.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because both Beri and Harrington describe software operating in similar environments (e.g., a personal computer with a web browser), making the integration of their respective features straightforward and predictable.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Armstrong, alone and in combination with Harrington - Claims 1-2, 23 are obvious over Armstrong, with claim 22 further obvious over Armstrong in view of Harrington.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Armstrong (Designing and Using ActiveX Controls, 1997), Harrington (Patent 7,120,871).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Armstrong, a book on ActiveX technology, taught the core concepts of claims 1-2 and 23. Armstrong distinguishes between two types of resources: "embedded" resources and resources linked via a "data path property." Petitioner argued that "embedded" resources function as prerequisite resources because Armstrong teaches that a web browser will not display the web page at all until these resources are fully downloaded, thus prohibiting presentation. In contrast, resources linked by a data path property enable "progressive rendering," allowing the page to be displayed immediately while these larger resources load asynchronously in the background. This maps directly to the claimed method of initiating presentation when no prerequisite resources are designated.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Similar to the first ground, Harrington was introduced to supply the "interactive television system" limitation of claim 22. A POSITA would combine Armstrong's teachings on efficient, asynchronous rendering of web resources with Harrington's system for integrating web content and television. This combination would predictably improve the performance of displaying complex web pages in an interactive TV context, a known goal in the art.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success was predictable, as the combination involved applying Armstrong's well-understood web rendering techniques within the interactive television system described by Harrington, both of which relied on common personal computer and web browser architecture.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Directive": Petitioner proposed the construction "declaration or instruction." This was based on the specification's explicit statement that "declarations or other statements used in the creation and/or manipulation of resources and content...may be generally referred to as 'directives'."
  • "Prerequisite directive...": Petitioner argued for "declaration or instruction that indicates a subset of the resources required for initiating the presentation." This construction was asserted to align with the patent's description of using a "prerequisite" meta-data header to label an essential subset of resources whose acquisition is required before rendering.
  • "Subset of Said Set of Resources": Petitioner proposed "a set that is some or all of said set of resources." This construction was argued to be necessary because the specification contemplates an embodiment where all resources are labeled as prerequisites, and a narrower construction would improperly exclude this disclosed embodiment.
  • "interactive television system" (Claim 22): Petitioner proposed the construction "system for providing interactive content as well as audio, video, and/or graphic presentations." This was based on the patent's description of such systems and was noted to be consistent with the Patent Owner's own proposed construction in related district court litigation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2 and 22-23 of the ’169 patent as unpatentable.